rfc.txt   bradner.txt 
Network Working Group S. Bradner, Ed. Network Working Group Scott Bradner
Request for Comments: 3979 Harvard University Internet-Draft Harvard University
Intended status: BCP
Obsoletes: 3668 Obsoletes: 3979, 4879 Jorge Contreras
Updates: 2028, 2026 Updates: 2026 American University
Category: Best Current Practice Expires: April 11, 2014 October 11, 2013
Intellectual Property Rights in IETF Technology Intellectual Property Rights in IETF Technology
draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-06.txt
Status of this Memo
This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the
Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
improvements. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).
Abstract Abstract
The IETF policies about Intellectual Property Rights (IPR), such as The IETF policies about Intellectual Property Rights (IPR), such as
patent rights, relative to technologies developed in the IETF are patent rights, relative to technologies developed in the IETF are
designed to ensure that IETF working groups and participants have as designed to ensure that IETF working groups and participants have as
much information about any IPR constraints on a technical proposal as much information about any IPR constraints on a technical proposal as
possible. The policies are also intended to benefit the Internet possible. The policies are intended to benefit the Internet
community and the public at large, while respecting the legitimate community and the public at large, while respecting the legitimate
rights of IPR holders. This memo details the IETF policies rights of IPR holders. This memo details the IETF policies
concerning IPR related to technology worked on within the IETF. It concerning IPR related to technology worked on within the IETF. It
also describes the objectives that the policies are designed to meet. also describes the objectives that the policies are designed to meet.
This memo updates RFC 2026 and, with RFC 3978, replaces Section 10 of This memo updates RFC 2026 and obsoletes RFC 3979 and RFC 4879.
RFC 2026. This memo also updates paragraph 4 of Section 3.2 of RFC
2028, for all purposes, including reference [2] in RFC 2418. Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on April 11, 2014.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Definitions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 [tbd]
2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Contributions to the IETF. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1. General Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2. Rights and Permissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Actions for Documents for which IPR Disclosure(s) Have Been
Received . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1. No Determination of Reasonable and Non-discriminatory
Terms. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. Notice to be Included in RFCs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. IPR Disclosures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.1. Who Must Make an IPR Disclosure? . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.2. The Timing of Providing Disclosure . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.3. How Must a Disclosure be Made? . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.4. What Must be in a Disclosure?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.5. What Licensing Information to Detail in a Disclosure . . 12
6.6. When is a Disclosure Required? . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7. Failure to Disclose. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8. Evaluating Alternative Technologies in IETF Working Groups . . 13
9. Change Control for Technologies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
10. Licensing Requirements to Advance Standards Track Documents. . 14
11. No IPR Disclosures in IETF Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
12. Security Considerations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
13. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
13.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
13.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
14. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
15. Editor's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Full Copyright Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
1. Definitions 1. Definitions
The following definitions are for terms used in the context of this The following definitions are for terms used in the context of this
document. Other terms, including "IESG," "ISOC," "IAB," and "RFC document. Other terms, including "IESG," "ISOC," "IAB," and "RFC
Editor," are defined in [RFC2028]. Editor," are defined in [RFC2028].
b. "IETF Contribution": any submission to the IETF intended by the a. "Alternate Stream": the IAB Document Stream, the IRTF Document
Stream and the Independent Submission Stream, each as defined in
Section 5.1 of [RFC4844].
b. "Contribution": any submission to the IETF intended by the
Contributor for publication as all or part of an Internet-Draft or Contributor for publication as all or part of an Internet-Draft or
RFC (except for RFC Editor Contributions described below) and any RFC and any statement made within the context of an IETF activity,
statement made within the context of an IETF activity. Such in each case that is intended to affect the IETF Standards Process
statements include oral statements in IETF sessions, as well as or that is related to the activity of an Alternate Stream that has
written and electronic communications made at any time or place, adopted this definition.
which are addressed to:
Such statements include oral statements, as well as written and
electronic communications, which are addressed to:
o the IETF plenary session, o the IETF plenary session,
o any IETF working group or portion thereof, o any IETF working group or portion thereof,
o any IETF "birds of a feather" (BOF) session or portion thereof,
o any IETF-sanctioned design team or portion thereof,
o the IESG, or any member thereof on behalf of the IESG, o the IESG, or any member thereof on behalf of the IESG,
o the IAB or any member thereof on behalf of the IAB, o the IAB or any member thereof on behalf of the IAB,
o any IETF mailing list, including the IETF list itself, any o any IETF mailing list, web site, chat room or discussion board,
working group or design team list, or any other list operated by or under the auspices of the IETF, including the
functioning under IETF auspices, IETF list itself,
o the RFC Editor or the Internet-Drafts function (except for RFC o the RFC Editor or the Internet-Drafts function.
Editor Contributions described below).
Statements made outside of an IETF session, mailing list or other Statements made outside of an IETF session, mailing list or other
function, that are clearly not intended to be input to an IETF function, or that are clearly not intended to be input to an IETF
activity, group or function, are not IETF Contributions in the activity, group or function, are not Contributions in the context
context of this document. of this document. For example, the presentations made by invited
speakers at IETF plenary sessions to discuss advances in Internet
technology generally, or to describe their existing products or
technologies, are not Contributions.
Throughout this memo, the term "written Contribution" is used.
For purposes of this memo, "written" means reduced to a written or
visual form in any language and any media, permanent or temporary,
including but not limited to traditional documents, e-mail
messages, discussion board postings, slide presentations, text
messages, instant messages, and transcriptions of oral statements.
c. "Contributor": an individual submitting a Contribution
d. "Covers" or "Covered" mean that a valid claim of a patent or a d. "Covers" or "Covered" mean that a valid claim of a patent or a
patent application in any jurisdiction or a protected claim, or patent application (including a provisional patent application) in
any other Intellectual Property Right, would necessarily be any jurisdiction , or any other Intellectual Property Right, would
infringed by the exercise of a right (e.g., making, using, necessarily be infringed by the exercise of a right (e.g., making,
selling, importing, distribution, copying, etc.) with respect to using, selling, importing, distribution, copying, etc.) with
an Implementing Technology. For purposes of this definition, respect to an Implementing Technology. For purposes of this
"valid claim" means a claim of any unexpired patent or patent definition, "valid claim" means a claim of any unexpired patent or
application which shall not have been withdrawn, cancelled or patent application which shall not have been withdrawn, cancelled
disclaimed, nor held invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction or disclaimed, nor held invalid by a court of competent
in an unappealed or unappealable decision. jurisdiction in an unappealed or unappealable decision.
e. "IETF": In the context of this document, the IETF includes all e. "IETF": In the context of this document, the IETF includes all
individuals who participate in meetings, working groups, mailing individuals who participate in meetings, working groups, mailing
lists, functions and other activities which are organized or lists, functions and other activities which are organized or
initiated by ISOC, the IESG or the IAB under the general initiated by ISOC, the IESG or the IAB under the general
designation of the Internet Engineering Task Force or IETF, but designation of the Internet Engineering Task Force or IETF, but
solely to the extent of such participation. solely to the extent of such participation.
f. "IETF Documents": RFCs and Internet-Drafts except for Internet- f. "IETF Documents": RFCs and Internet-Drafts that are published as
Drafts that are RFC Editor Contributions and the RFCs that are part of the IETF Standards Process. These are also referred to as
published from them. "IETF Stream Documents" as defined in Section 5.1.1 of RFC 4844.
g. "IETF Standards Process": the activities undertaken by the IETF in g. "IETF Standards Process": the activities undertaken by the IETF in
any of the settings described in 1(c) below. any of the settings described in the above definition of
Contribution. The IETF Standards Process may include
participation in activities and publication of documents that are
not directed toward the development of IETF standards or
specifications, such as the development and publication of
informational documents.
h. "IPR" or "Intellectual Property Rights": means patent, copyright, h. "IPR" or "Intellectual Property Rights": means a patent, utility
utility model, invention registration, database and data rights model, or similar right that may Cover an Implementing Technology,
that may Cover an Implementing Technology, whether such rights whether such rights arise from a registration or renewal thereof,
arise from a registration or renewal thereof, or an application or an application therefore, in each case anywhere in the world.
therefore, in each case anywhere in the world.
See [RFC5378] for a discussion of Trademarks.
i. "Implementing Technology": means a technology that implements an i. "Implementing Technology": means a technology that implements an
IETF specification or standard. IETF specification or standard.
j. "Internet-Draft": temporary documents used in the IETF and RFC j. "Internet-Draft": a temporary document used in the IETF and RFC
Editor processes. Internet-Drafts are posted on the IETF web site Editor processes, as described in [RFC2026].
by the IETF Secretariat and have a nominal maximum lifetime in the
Secretariat's public directory of 6 months, after which they are
removed. Note that Internet-Drafts are archived many places on
the Internet, and not all of these places remove expired
Internet-Drafts. Internet-Drafts that are under active
consideration by the IESG are not removed from the Secretariat's
public directory until that consideration is complete. In
addition, the author of an Internet-Draft can request that the
lifetime in the Secretariat's public directory be extended before
the expiration.
g. "IETF Internet-Drafts": Internet-Drafts other than RFC Editor
Contributions. Note that under Section 3.3(a) the grant of rights
in regards to IETF Internet-Drafts as specified in this document
is perpetual and irrevocable and thus survives the Secretariat's
removal of an Internet-Draft from the public directory, except as
limited by Section 3.3(a)(C). (See [RFC2026] Sections 2.2 and 8)
i. "RFC Editor Documents": RFCs and Internet-Drafts that are RFC
Editor Contributions and the RFCs that may be published from them.
j. "Contribution": IETF Contributions or RFC Editor Contributions k. "Participating in an IETF discussion or activity": means making a
k. "Contributor": an individual submitting a Contribution Contribution, as described above, or in any other way acting in
order to influence the outcome of a discussion relating to the
IETF Standards Process. Without limiting the generality of the
foregoing, acting as a working group chair or Area Director
constitutes "Participating" in all activities of the relevant
working group or area.
l. "Reasonably and personally known": means something an individual l. "Reasonably and personally known": means something an individual
knows personally or, because of the job the individual holds, knows personally or, because of the job the individual holds,
would reasonably be expected to know. This wording is used to would reasonably be expected to know. This wording is used to
indicate that an organization cannot purposely keep an individual indicate that an organization cannot purposely keep an individual
in the dark about patents or patent applications just to avoid the in the dark about patents or patent applications just to avoid the
disclosure requirement. But this requirement should not be disclosure requirement. But this requirement should not be
interpreted as requiring the IETF Contributor or participant (or interpreted as requiring the IETF Contributor or participant (or
his or her represented organization, if any) to perform a patent his or her represented organization, if any) to perform a patent
search to find applicable IPR. search to find applicable IPR.
m. "RFC": the basic publication series for the IETF. RFCs are m. "RFC": the basic publication series for the IETF. RFCs are
published by the RFC Editor and once published are never modified. published by the RFC Editor and once published are never modified.
(See [RFC2026] Section 2.1) (See [RFC2026] Section 2.1)
f. "RFC Editor Contribution": An Internet-Draft intended by the
Contributor to be submitted to the RFC Editor for publication as
an Informational or Experimental RFC but not intended to be part
of the IETF Standards Process.
2. Introduction 2. Introduction
In the years since RFC 2026 was published there have been a number of The IETF policies about Intellectual Property Rights (IPR), such as
times when the exact intent of Section 10, the section which deals patent rights, relative to technologies developed in the IETF are
with IPR disclosures has been the subject of vigorous debate within designed to ensure that IETF working groups and participants have as
the IETF community. This is because it is becoming increasingly much information about any IPR constraints on a technical proposal as
common for IETF working groups to have to deal with claims of possible. The policies are intended to benefit the Internet
Intellectual Property Rights (IPR), such as patent rights, with community and the public at large, while respecting the legitimate
regards to technology under discussion in working groups. The aim of rights of IPR holders. This memo details the IETF policies
this document is to clarify various ambiguities in Section 10 of concerning IPR related to technology worked on within the IETF. It
[RFC2026] that led to these debates and to amplify the policy in also describes the objectives that the policies are designed to meet.
order to clarify what the IETF is, or should be, doing. This memo updates RFC 2026 [RFC2026] and obsoletes RFC 3979 [RFC3979]
and RFC 4879 [RFC4879].
IPR disclosures can come at any point in the IETF Standards Process,
e.g., before the first Internet-Draft has been submitted, prior to
RFC publication, or after an RFC has been published and the working
group has been closed down; they can come from people submitting
technical proposals as Internet-Drafts, on mailing lists or at
meetings, from other people participating in the working group or
from third parties who find out that the work is going or has gone
on; and they can be based on granted patents or on patent
applications, and in some cases be disingenuous, i.e., made to affect
the IETF Standards Process rather than to inform.
RFC 2026, Section 10 established three basic principles regarding the
IETF dealing with claims of Intellectual Property Rights:
(a) the IETF will make no determination about the validity of any
particular IPR claim
(b) the IETF following normal processes can decide to use technology
for which IPR disclosures have been made if it decides that such
a use is warranted
(c) in order for the working group and the rest of the IETF to have
the information needed to make an informed decision about the use
of a particular technology, all those contributing to the working
group's discussions must disclose the existence of any IPR the
Contributor or other IETF participant believes Covers or may
ultimately Cover the technology under discussion. This applies
to both Contributors and other participants, and applies whether
they contribute in person, via email or by other means. The
requirement applies to all IPR of the participant, the
participant's employer, sponsor, or others represented by the
participants, that is reasonably and personally known to the
participant. No patent search is required.
Section 1 defines the terms used in this document. Sections 3, 4 and Section 1 defines the terms used in this document. Sections 3
5 of this document address the intellectual property issues through 11 set forth the IETF's policies and procedures relating to
previously addressed by Section 10 of RFC 2026. Sections 6 thru 12 IPR. Section 13 lists the changes between this document and RFCs
then explain the rationale for these provisions, including some of 3979 and 4879. A separate document [RFC5378] deals with rights (such
the clarifications that have been made since the adoption of RFC as copyrights and Trademarks) in Contributions, including the right
2026. The rules and procedures set out in this document are not of IETF and its participants to publish and create derivative works
intended to modify or alter the IETF's current policy toward IPR in of those Contributions. This document is not intended to address
the context of the IETF Standards Process. They are intended to those issues. See RFC 6702 [RFC6702] for a discussion of "Promoting
clarify and fill in procedural gaps. Compliance with Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) Disclosure Rules".
/ This document is not intended as legal advice. Readers are advised / This document is not intended as legal advice. Readers are advised
to consult their own legal advisors if they would like a legal to consult their own legal advisors if they would like a legal
interpretation of their rights or the rights of the IETF in any interpretation of their rights or the rights of the IETF in any
Contributions they make. Contributions they make.
A companion document [RFC3978] deals with rights (such as copyrights
and trademarks) in Contributions, including the right of IETF and its
participants to publish and create derivative works of those
Contributions. This document is not intended to address those
issues.
3. Contributions to the IETF 3. Contributions to the IETF
3.1. General Policy 3.1. General Policy
In all matters of Intellectual Property Rights, the intent is to In all matters relating to Intellectual Property Rights, the intent
benefit the Internet community and the public at large, while is to benefit the Internet community and the public at large, while
respecting the legitimate rights of others. respecting the legitimate rights of others.
3.2. Rights and Permissions 3.2. Rights and Permissions
3.2.1. All Contributions
By submission of a Contribution, each person actually submitting the By submission of a Contribution, each person actually submitting the
Contribution, and each named co-Contributor, is deemed to agree to Contribution, and each named co-Contributor, is deemed to agree to
the following terms and conditions, on his or her own behalf, and on the following terms and conditions, on his or her own behalf, and on
behalf of the organizations the Contributor represents or is behalf of the organizations the Contributor represents or is
sponsored by (if any) when submitting the Contribution. sponsored by (if any) when submitting the Contribution.
A. The Contributor represents that he or she has made or will A. The Contributor represents that he or she has made or will
promptly make all disclosures required by Section 6.1.1 of this promptly make all disclosures required by Section 5.1.1 of this
document. document.
B. The Contributor represents that there are no limits to the B. The Contributor represents that there are no limits to the
Contributor's ability to make the grants, acknowledgments and Contributor's ability to make the grants, acknowledgments and
agreements herein that are reasonably and personally known to the agreements herein that are reasonably and personally known to the
Contributor. Contributor.
C. If the Contribution is an Internet-Draft, this agreement must be
acknowledged, by including in the "Status of this Memo" section on
the first page of the Contribution, the appropriate notices
described in Section 5 of [RFC3978].
4. Actions for Documents for which IPR Disclosure(s) Have Been Received 4. Actions for Documents for which IPR Disclosure(s) Have Been Received
A. The IESG disclaims any responsibility for identifying the A. The IESG, IAB, ISOC and IETF Trust disclaim any responsibility for
existence of or for evaluating the applicability of any IPR, identifying the existence of or for evaluating the applicability
disclosed or otherwise, to any IETF technology, specification or of any IPR, disclosed or otherwise, to any IETF technology,
standard, and will take no position on the validity or scope of specification or standard, and will take no position on the
any such IPR claims. validity or scope of any such IPR.
B. When any Intellectual Property Right is disclosed before B. When the IETF Secretariat has received a notification under
publication as an RFC, with respect to any technology or Section 5.1.3 of the existence of non-participant IPR that
specification, described in a Contribution in the manner set potentially Covers a technology under discussion at IETF or which
forth in Section 6 of this document, the RFC Editor shall ensure is the subject of an IETF Document, the IETF Secretariat shall
that the document include a note indicating the existence of such promptly publish such notification and will request that the
claimed Intellectual Property Rights in any RFC published from identified third party make an IPR disclosure in accordance with
the Contribution. (See Section 5 below.) the provisions of Section 5.
C. Where Intellectual Property Rights have been disclosed for IETF
Documents as provided in Section 6 of this document, the IETF C. When an IPR disclosure has been made as provided in Section 5 of
Executive Director shall request from the discloser of such IPR, this document, the IETF Secretariat may request from the purported
a written assurance that upon approval by the IESG for holder of such IPR, a written assurance that upon approval by the
publication as RFCs of the relevant IETF specification(s), all IESG for publication of the relevant IETF specification(s) as one
persons will be able to obtain the right to implement, use, or more RFCs, all persons will be able to obtain the right to
distribute and exercise other rights with respect to Implementing implement, use, distribute and exercise other rights with respect
Technology under one of the licensing options specified in to Implementing Technology under one of the licensing options
Section 6.5 below unless such a statement has already been specified in Section 5.5.A below unless such a statement has
submitted. The working group proposing the use of the technology already been submitted. The working group proposing the use of
with respect to which the Intellectual Property Rights are the technology with respect to which the Intellectual Property
disclosed may assist the IETF Executive Director in this effort. Rights are disclosed may assist the IETF Secretariat in this
effort.
The results of this procedure shall not, in themselves, block The results of this procedure shall not, in themselves, block
publication of an IETF Document or advancement of an IETF publication of an IETF Document or advancement of an IETF Document
Document along the standards track. A working group may take along the standards track. A working group may take into
into consideration the results of this procedure in evaluating consideration the results of this procedure in evaluating the
the technology, and the IESG may defer approval when a delay may technology, and the IESG may defer approval when a delay may
facilitate obtaining such assurances. The results will, however, facilitate obtaining such assurances. The results will, however,
be recorded by the IETF Executive Director, and be made available be recorded by the IETF Secretariat, and be made available online.
online.
D. No Determination of Reasonable and Non-discriminatory Terms
The IESG will not make any explicit determination that the assurance
of reasonable and non-discriminatory terms or any other terms for the
use of an Implementing Technology has been fulfilled in practice. It
will instead apply the normal requirements for the advancement of
Internet Standards. If the two unrelated implementations of the
specification that are required to advance from Proposed Standard to
Draft Standard have been produced by different organizations or
individuals, or if the "significant implementation and successful
operational experience" required to advance from Draft Standard to
Standard has been achieved, the IESG will presume that the terms are
reasonable and to some degree non-discriminatory. (See RFC 2026,
Section 4.1.3.) Note that this also applies to the case where
multiple implementers have concluded that no licensing is required.
This presumption may be challenged at any time, including during the
Last-Call period by sending email to the IESG.
5. Notice to be Included in RFCs
The RFC Editor will ensure that the following notice is present in
all IETF RFCs and all other RFCs for which an IPR disclosure or
assertion has been received prior to publication.
Disclaimer of validity:
"The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed
to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology
described in this document or the extent to which any license
under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it
represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any
such rights. Information on the procedures with respect to rights
in RFC documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use
of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository
at http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention D. Determination of Provision of Reasonable and Non-discriminatory
any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other Terms
proprietary rights that may cover technology that may be required
to implement this standard. Please address the information to the
IETF at ietf-ipr@ietf.org."
6. IPR Disclosures The IESG will not make any determination that any terms for the
use of an Implementing Technology has been fulfilled in practice.
This section discusses aspects of obligations associated with IPR 5. IPR Disclosures
disclosure.
This document refers to the IETF participant making disclosures, This document refers to the IETF participant making disclosures,
consistent with the general IETF philosophy that participants in the consistent with the general IETF philosophy that participants in the
IETF act as individuals. A participant's obligation to make a IETF act as individuals. A participant's obligation to make a
disclosure is also considered satisfied if the IPR owner or the disclosure is also considered satisfied if the IPR owner or the
participant's employer or sponsor makes an appropriate disclosure in participant's employer or sponsor makes an appropriate disclosure in
place of the participant doing so. place of the participant doing so.
6.1. Who Must Make an IPR Disclosure? 5.1. Who Must Make an IPR Disclosure?
6.1.1. A Contributor's IPR in his or her Contribution 5.1.1. A Contributor's IPR in his or her Contribution
Any Contributor who reasonably and personally knows of IPR meeting Any Contributor who reasonably and personally knows of IPR meeting
the conditions of Section 6.6 which the Contributor believes Covers the conditions of Section 5.6 which the Contributor believes Covers
or may ultimately Cover his or her Contribution, or which the or may ultimately Cover his or her written Contribution (other than a
Contributor reasonably and personally knows his or her employer or Contribution that is not intended to be used as an input into the
sponsor may assert against Implementing Technologies based on such IETF Standards Process), or which the Contributor reasonably and
Contribution, must make a disclosure in accordance with this Section personally knows his or her employer or sponsor may assert against
6. Implementing Technologies based on such written Contribution, must
make a disclosure in accordance with this Section 5.
This requirement specifically includes Contributions that are made by
any means including electronic or spoken comments, unless the latter
are rejected from consideration before a disclosure could reasonably
be submitted. An IPR discloser is requested to withdraw a previous
disclosure if a revised Contribution negates the previous IPR
disclosure, or to amend a previous disclosure if a revised
Contribution substantially alters the previous disclosure.
Contributors must disclose IPR meeting the description in this
section; there are no exceptions to this rule.
6.1.2. An IETF Participant's IPR in Contributions by Others 5.1.2. An IETF Participant's IPR in Contributions by Others
Any individual participating in an IETF discussion who reasonably and Any individual participating in an IETF discussion or activity who
personally knows of IPR meeting the conditions of Section 6.6 which reasonably and personally knows of IPR meeting the conditions of
the individual believes Covers or may ultimately Cover a Contribution Section 5.6 which the individual believes Covers or may ultimately
made by another person, or which such IETF participant reasonably and Cover a written Contribution made by another person, or which such
personally knows his or her employer or sponsor may assert against IETF participant reasonably and personally knows his or her employer
Implementing Technologies based on such Contribution, must make a or sponsor may assert against Implementing Technologies based on such
disclosure in accordance with this Section 6. written Contribution, must make a disclosure in accordance with this
Section 5.
6.1.3. IPR of Others 5.1.3. IPR of Others
If a person has information about IPR that may Cover IETF If any person has information about IPR that may Cover a written
Contributions, but the participant is not required to disclose Contribution, but such person is not required to disclose such IPR
because they do not meet the criteria in Section 6.6 (e.g., the IPR because it does not meet the criteria in Section 6.6 (e.g., the IPR
is owned by some other company), such person is encouraged to notify is not owned or controlled by the person or his or her employer or
the IETF by sending an email message to ietf-ipr@ietf.org. Such a sponsor, or such person is not an IETF participant), such person is
notice should be sent as soon as reasonably possible after the person encouraged to file a third party disclosure as described in Section
realizes the connection. 5.3 below. Such a notice should be filed as soon as reasonably
possible after the IETF participant realizes the connection.
6.2. The Timing of Providing Disclosure 5.2. The Timing of Providing Disclosure
Timely IPR disclosure is important because working groups need to Timely IPR disclosure is important because working groups need to
have as much information as they can while they are evaluating have as much information as they can while they are evaluating
alternative solutions. alternative solutions.
6.2.1. Timing of Disclosure Under Section 6.1.1 5.2.1. Timing of Disclosure Under Section 5.1.1
The IPR disclosure required pursuant to section 6.1.1 must be made as A. The IPR disclosure required pursuant to section 5.1.1 must be made
soon as reasonably possible after the Contribution is published in an as soon as reasonably possible after the Contribution is submitted
Internet Draft unless the required disclosure is already on file. or made unless the required disclosure is already on file. For
For example, if the Contribution is an update to a Contribution for example, if the Contribution is an update to a Contribution for
which an IPR disclosure has already been made and the applicability which an IPR disclosure has already been made and the
of the disclosure is not changed by the new Contribution, then no new applicability of the disclosure is not changed by the new
disclosure is required. But if the Contribution is a new one, or is Contribution, then no new disclosure is required. But if the
one that changes an existing Contribution such that the revised Contribution is a new one, or is one that changes an existing
Contribution is no longer Covered by the disclosed IPR or would be Contribution such that the revised Contribution is no longer
Covered by new or different IPR, then a disclosure must be made. Covered by the disclosed IPR or would be Covered by new or
different IPR, then a disclosure must be made.
If a Contributor first learns of IPR in its Contribution that meets B. If a Contributor first learns of IPR in its Contribution that
the conditions of Section 6.6, for example a new patent application meets the conditions of Section 5.6, for example a new patent
or the discovery of a relevant patent in a patent portfolio, after application or the discovery of a relevant patent in a patent
the Contribution is published in an Internet-Draft, a disclosure must portfolio, after the Contribution is published in an Internet-
be made as soon as reasonably possible after the IPR becomes Draft, a disclosure must be made as soon as reasonably possible
reasonably and personally known to the Contributor. after the IPR becomes reasonably and personally known to the
Contributor.
Participants who realize that a Contribution will be or has been 5.2.2. Timing of Disclosure Under Section5.1.2
incorporated into a submission to be published in an Internet Draft,
or is seriously being discussed in a working group, are strongly
encouraged to make at least a preliminary disclosure. That
disclosure should be made as soon after coming to the realization as
reasonably possible, not waiting until the document is actually
posted or ready for posting.
6.2.2. Timing of Disclosure Under Section 6.1.2 The IPR disclosure required pursuant to section 5.1.2 must be made as
soon as reasonably possible after the Contribution is made, unless
the required disclosure is already on file.
The IPR disclosure required pursuant to section 6.1.2 must be made as Participants who realize that IPR meeting the conditions of Section
soon as reasonably possible after the Contribution is published in an 5.6 will be or has been incorporated into a Contribution, or is
Internet Draft or RFC, unless the required disclosure is already on seriously being discussed in a working group, are strongly encouraged
file. Participants who realize that the IPR will be or has been to make a preliminary IPR disclosure. That IPR disclosure should be
incorporated into a submission to be published in an Internet Draft, made as soon after coming to the realization as reasonably possible,
or is seriously being discussed in a working group, are strongly not waiting until the Contribution is actually made.
encouraged to make at least a preliminary disclosure. That
disclosure should be made as soon after coming to the realization as
reasonably possible, not waiting until the document is actually
posted or ready for posting.
If a participant first learns of IPR that meets the conditions of If an IETF participant first learns of IPR that meets the conditions
Section 6.6 in a Contribution by another party, for example a new of Section 5.6 in a Contribution by another party, for example a new
patent application or the discovery of a relevant patent in a patent patent application or the discovery of a relevant patent in a patent
portfolio, after the Contribution was published in an Internet-Draft portfolio, after the Contribution was made, an IPR disclosure must be
or RFC, a disclosure must be made as soon as reasonably possible made as soon as reasonably possible after the Contribution or IPR
after the IPR becomes reasonably and personally known to the becomes reasonably and personally known to the participant.
participant.
6.3. How Must a Disclosure be Made? 5.3. How Must an IPR Disclosure be Made?
IPR disclosures are made by following the instructions at IPR disclosures are made by following the instructions at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr-instructions. http://www.ietf.org/ipr-instructions.
6.4. What Must be in a Disclosure? 5.4. What Must be in an IPR Disclosure? Updating IPR Disclosures.
6.4.1. The disclosure must list the numbers of any issued patents or 5.4.1. What Must be in an IPR Disclosure?
An IPR disclosure must list the numbers of any issued patents or
published patent applications or indicate that the claim is based on published patent applications or indicate that the claim is based on
unpublished patent applications. The disclosure must also list the unpublished patent applications. The IPR disclosure must also list
specific IETF or RFC Editor Document(s) or activity affected. If the the name(s) of the inventor(s) (with respect to issued patents and
IETF Document is an Internet-Draft, it must be referenced by specific published patent applications) and the specific IETF Document(s) or
version number. In addition, if the IETF Document includes multiple activity affected. If the IETF Document is an Internet-Draft, it
parts and it is not reasonably apparent which part of such IETF must be referenced by specific version number. In addition, if the
Document is alleged to be Covered by the IPR in question, it is IETF Document includes multiple parts and it is not reasonably
helpful if the discloser identifies the sections of the IETF Document apparent which part of such IETF Document is alleged to be Covered by
that are alleged to be so Covered. the IPR in question, the discloser must identify the sections of the
IETF Document that are alleged to be so Covered.
6.4.2. If a disclosure was made on the basis of a patent application 5.4.2. Updating IPR Disclosures.
(either published or unpublished), then, if requested to do so by the
IESG or by a working group chair, the IETF Executive Director can
request a new disclosure indicating whether any of the following has
occurred: the publication of a previously unpublished patent
application, the abandonment of the application and/or the issuance
of a patent thereon. If the patent has issued, then the new
disclosure must include the patent number and, if the claims of the
granted patent differ from those of the application in manner
material to the relevant Contribution, it is helpful if such a
disclosure describes any differences in applicability to the
Contribution. If the patent application was abandoned, then the new
disclosure must explicitly withdraw any earlier disclosures based on
the application.
New or revised disclosures may be made voluntarily at any time. Claimants should be aware that as drafts evolve, text may be added or
removed, and it is recommended that they keep this in mind when
composing text for disclosures.
6.5. What Licensing Information to Detail in a Disclosure A. An IPR disclosure must be updated or a new disclosure made
promptly after any of the following has occurred: (1) the
publication of a previously unpublished patent application,
(unless sufficient information to identify the published
application was disclosed when the unpublished application was
disclosed), (2) the abandonment of a patent application
(3) the issuance of a patent on a previously disclosed patent
application (unless sufficient information to identify the issued
patent was disclosed when the patent application was disclosed),
(4) a material change to the IETF Document covered by the
Disclosure that causes the Disclosure to be covered by additional
IPR. If a patent has issued, then the new IPR disclosure must
include the patent number and, if the claims of the granted patent
differ from those of the application in manner material to the
relevant Contribution, the IPR disclosure must describe any
differences in applicability to the Contribution. If the patent
application was abandoned, then the new IPR disclosure must
explicitly withdraw any earlier IPR disclosures based on the
application. IPR disclosures against a particular Contribution
are assumed to be inherited by revisions of the Contribution and
by any RFCs that are published from the Contribution unless the
disclosure has been updated or withdrawn.
Since IPR disclosures will be used by IETF working groups during B. If an IPR holder files patent applications in additional
their evaluation of alternative technical solutions, it is helpful if countries, the claims of which are substantially identical to the
an IPR disclosure includes information about licensing of the IPR in claims of a patent or patent application previously disclosed in
case Implementing Technologies require a license. Specifically, it an IPR disclosure, the IPR holder is not required to make a new or
is helpful to indicate whether, upon approval by the IESG for updated IPR disclosure as a result of filing such applications or
publication as RFCs of the relevant IETF specification(s), all the issuance of patents on such applications.
persons will be able to obtain the right to implement, use,
distribute and exercise other rights with respect to an Implementing
Technology a) under a royalty-free and otherwise reasonable and non-
discriminatory license, or b) under a license that contains
reasonable and non-discriminatory terms and conditions, including a
reasonable royalty or other payment, or c) without the need to obtain
a license from the IPR holder.
The inclusion of licensing information in IPR disclosures is not C. New or revised IPR disclosures may be made voluntarily at any
mandatory but it is encouraged so that the working groups will have other time, provided that licensing information may only be
as much information as they can during their deliberations. If the updated in accordance with Section 5.5.C.
inclusion of licensing information in an IPR disclosure would
significantly delay its submission it is quite reasonable to submit a
disclosure without licensing information and then submit a new
disclosure when the licensing information becomes available.
5.4.3. The requirement for an IPR disclosure is not satisfied by the D. Any person may submit to IETF an update to an existing IPR
submission of a blanket statement of possible IPR on every disclosure. If such update is submitted by a person other than
Contribution. This is the case because the aim of the disclosure the submitter of the original IPR disclosure (as identified by
requirement is to provide information about specific IPR against name and e-mail address), then the Secretariat shall attempt to
specific technology under discussion in the IETF. The requirement is contact the original submitter to verify the update. If the
also not satisfied by a blanket statement of willingness to license original submitter responds that the proposed update is valid, the
all potential IPR under fair and non-discriminatory terms for the Secretariat will update the IPR disclosure accordingly. If the
same reason. However, the requirement for an IPR disclosure is original submitter responds that the proposed update is not valid,
satisfied by a blanket statement of the IPR discloser's willingness the Secretariat will not update the IPR disclosure. If the
to license all of its potential IPR meeting the requirements of original submitter fails to respond after the Secretariat has made
Section 6.6 (and either Section 6.1.1 or 6.1.2) to implementers of an three separate inquiries and at least 30 days have elapsed since
IETF specification on a royalty-free basis as long as any other terms the initial inquiry was made, then the Secretariat will inform the
and conditions are disclosed in the IPR disclosure statement. submitter of the proposed update that the update was not
validated, and that the updater must produce legally sufficient
evidence that the submitter (or his/her employer) owns or has the
legal right to exercise control over the IPR subject to the IPR
disclosure. If such evidence is satisfactory to the Secretariat,
after consultation with legal counsel, then the Secretariat will
make the requested update. If such evidence is not satisfactory,
then the Secretariat will not make the requested update.
6.6. When is a Disclosure Required? 5.4.3. The requirement to make an IPR disclosure is not satisfied by the
submission of a blanket statement that IPR may exist on every
Contribution or a general category of Contributions. This is the
case because the aim of the disclosure requirement is to provide
information about specific IPR against specific technology under
discussion in the IETF. The requirement is also not satisfied by a
blanket statement of willingness or commitment to license all
potential IPR Covering such technology under fair, reasonable and
non-discriminatory terms for the same reason. However, the
requirement for an IPR disclosure is satisfied by a blanket statement
of the IPR discloser's commitment to license all of its IPR meeting
the requirements of Section 5.6 (and either Section 5.1.1 or 5.1.2)
to implementers of an IETF specification on a royalty-free (and
otherwise reasonable and non-discriminatory) basis as long as any
other terms and conditions are disclosed in the IPR disclosure.
IPR disclosures under Sections 6.1.1. and 6.1.2 are required with 5.5. Licensing Information in an IPR Disclosure
respect to IPR that is owned directly or indirectly, by the
individual or his/her employer or sponsor (if any) or that such
persons otherwise have the right to license or assert.
7. Failure to Disclose A. Since IPR disclosures will be used by IETF working groups during
their evaluation of alternative technical solutions, it is helpful
if an IPR disclosure includes information about licensing of the
IPR in case Implementing Technologies require a license.
Specifically, it is helpful to indicate whether, upon approval by
the IESG for publication as an RFC of the relevant IETF
specification(s), all persons will be able to obtain the right to
implement, use, distribute and exercise other rights with respect
to an Implementing Technology a) under a royalty-free and
otherwise reasonable and non- discriminatory license, or b) under
a license that contains reasonable and non-discriminatory terms
and conditions, including a reasonable royalty or other payment,
or c) without the need to obtain a license from the IPR holder
(i.e., a covenant not to sue).
There are cases where individuals are not permitted by their B. The inclusion of a licensing declaration is not mandatory but it
is encouraged so that the working groups will have as much
information as they can during their deliberations. If the
inclusion of a licensing declaration in an IPR disclosure would
significantly delay its submission it is quite reasonable to
submit an IPR disclosure without a licensing declaration and then
submit a new IPR disclosure when the licensing declaration becomes
available. IPR disclosures that voluntarily provide text that
includes licensing information, comments, notes, or URL for other
information may also voluntarily include details regarding
specific licensing terms that the IPR holder intends to offer to
implementers of Implementing Technologies, including maximum
royalty rates
C. It is likely that IETF participants will rely on licensing
declarations and other information that may be contained in an IPR
disclosure and that they will make technical, legal and commercial
decisions on the basis of such commitments and information. Thus,
when licensing declarations and information, comments, notes, or
URLs for further information are contained in an IPR disclosure,
such materials shall be deemed irrevocable, and will attach to the
associated IPR, and all implementers of Implementing Technologies
will be justified and entitled to rely on such materials in
relating to such IPR, whether or not it is subsequently
transferred to a third party by the IPR holder making the
commitment or providing the information. IPR holders making IPR
disclosures that contain licensing declarations or providing such
information, comments, notes or URLs for further information must
ensure that such commitments are binding on any subsequent
transferee of the relevant IPR.
D. Licensing declarations must be made by people who are authorized
to make such declarations.
5.6. Level of Control over IPR requiring Disclosure
IPR disclosures under Sections 5.1.1. and 5.1.2 are required with
respect to IPR that is (a) owned, directly or indirectly, by the
individual or his/her employer or sponsor (if any) or (b) that such
persons otherwise have the right to license or assert or (c) that
such persons derive a direct or indirect pecuniary benefit from such
IPR, or (d) in the case of an individual, the individual is listed as
an inventor on a patent or patent application.
5.7. Disclosures for Oral Contributions.
If a Contribution is oral and is not followed promptly by a written
disclosure of the same material, and if such oral Contribution would
be subject to a requirement that an IPR Disclosure be made had such
oral Contribution been written, then the Contributor must accompany
such oral Contribution with an oral declaration that he/she is aware
of relevant IPR in as much detail as reasonably possible, or file an
IPR Declaration with respect to such oral Contribution that otherwise
complies with the provisions of Sections 5.1 to 5.6 above.
5.8. General Disclosures.
The IETF may make available a public facility (e.g., a web page and
associated database) for the posting of IPR-related information and
disclosures that do not conform to the requirements of Sections 5.1
to 5.6 ("General Disclosures"). General Disclosures may include,
among other things, "blanket disclosures" described in Section 5.4.3
(other than blanket disclosures accompanied by royalty-free licensing
commitments, as permitted by Section 5.4.3), disclosures of IPR that
do not identify the specific IETF Documents Covered by the disclosed
IPR, and licensing statements or commitments that are applicable
generally and not to specific IPR disclosures. All of this
information may be helpful to the IETF community, and its disclosure
is encouraged. However, General Disclosures do not satisfy an IETF
participant's obligation to make IPR disclosures as required by this
policy.
In some cases, if an IPR disclosure submitted by an IETF participant
does not meet the requirements of this policy, the IETF may elect to
post the non-conforming IPR disclosure as a General Disclosure, in
order to provide the greatest amount of information to the IETF
community. This action does not excuse the IETF participant from
submitting a new IPR disclosure that conforms with the requirements
of Sections 5.1 to 5.6. The IETF reserves the right to decline to
publish General Disclosures that are not relevant to IETF activities,
that are, or are suspected of being, defamatory, false, misleading,
in violation of privacy or other applicable laws or regulations, or
that are in a format that is not suitable for posting on the IETF
facility that has been designated for General Disclosures.
6. Failure to Disclose
There may be cases in which individuals are not permitted by their
employers or by other factors to disclose the existence or substance employers or by other factors to disclose the existence or substance
of patent applications or other IPR. Since disclosure is required of patent applications or other IPR. Since disclosure is required
for anyone submitting documents or participating in IETF discussions, for anyone making a Contribution or participating in IETF activities,
a person who does not disclose IPR for this reason, or any other a person who is not willing or able to disclose IPR for this reason,
reason, must not contribute to or participate in IETF activities with or any other reason, must not contribute to or participate in IETF
respect to technologies that he or she reasonably and personally activities with respect to technologies that he or she reasonably and
knows to be Covered by IPR which he or she will not disclose. personally knows to be Covered by IPR which he or she will not
Contributing to or participating in IETF discussions about a disclose.
Contributing to or participating in IETF activities about a
technology without making required IPR disclosures is a violation of technology without making required IPR disclosures is a violation of
IETF process. IETF process.
8. Evaluating Alternative Technologies in IETF Working Groups In addition to any remedies or defenses that may be available to
implementers and others under the law with respect to such a
violation (e.g., rendering the relevant IPR unenforceable), the IESG
may, when it in good faith concludes that such a violation has
occurred, impose penalties including, but not limited to, suspending
the posting/participation rights of the offending individual,
suspending the posting/participation rights of other individuals
employed by the same company as the offending individual, amending,
withdrawing or superseding the relevant IETF Documents, and publicly
announcing the facts surrounding such violation, including the name
of the offending individual and his or her employer or sponsor. See
[RFC6701] for details.
7. Evaluating Alternative Technologies in IETF Working Groups
In general, IETF working groups prefer technologies with no known IPR In general, IETF working groups prefer technologies with no known IPR
claims or, for technologies with claims against them, an offer of claims or, for technologies with claims against them, an offer of
royalty-free licensing. But IETF working groups have the discretion royalty-free licensing. However, to solve a given technical problem,
to adopt technology with a commitment of fair and non-discriminatory IETF working groups have the discretion to adopt a technology as to
terms, or even with no licensing commitment, if they feel that this which IPR claims have been made if they feel that this technology is
technology is superior enough to alternatives with fewer IPR claims superior enough to alternatives with fewer IPR claims or free
or free licensing to outweigh the potential cost of the licenses. licensing to outweigh the potential cost of the licenses. To assist
these working groups, it is helpful for the IPR claimants to declare,
in their IPR Declarations, the terms, if any, on which they are
willing to license their IPR Covering the relevant IETF Documents.
When evaluating the desirability of adopting such technologies, IETF
working groups generally prefer such terms in the following order
(from most to least desirable):
a) commitment not to assert declared IPR;
b) commitment to license declared IPR on royalty-free terms that are
otherwise fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (RAND-z);
c) commitment to license declared IPR on terms that are fair,
reasonable and non-discriminatory, and which may bear royalties or
other financial obligations (FRAND or RAND);
d) commitment to license, with no constraints on terms;
e) no commitment to license.
The level of use of a technology against which IPR is disclosed is
also an important factor in weighing IPR encumbrances and associated
licensing conditions against technical merits. For example, if
technologies are being considered for a mandatory-to-implement change
to a widely deployed protocol, the hurdle should be very high for
encumbered technologies, whereas a similar hurdle for a new protocol
could conceivably be lower.
It is also important to note that monetary compensation is only one
of several factors that individuals in WGs and the IESG need to
consider when analyzing licensing terms contained in IPR disclosures.
Thus, if particularly onerous non-monetary terms are included in a
particular disclosure, they may be viewed as less desirable than less
onerous terms that may bear a higher monetary burden.
Over the last few years the IETF has adopted stricter requirements Over the last few years the IETF has adopted stricter requirements
for some security technologies. It has become common to have a for some security technologies. It has become common to have a
mandatory-to-implement security technology in IETF technology mandatory-to-implement security technology in IETF technology
specifications. This is to ensure that there will be at least one specifications. This is to ensure that there will be at least one
common security technology present in all implementations of such a common security technology present in all implementations of such a
specification that can be used in all cases. This does not limit the specification that can be used in all cases. This does not limit the
specification from including other security technologies, the use of specification from including other security technologies, the use of
which could be negotiated between implementations. An IETF consensus which could be negotiated between implementations. An IETF consensus
has developed that no mandatory-to-implement security technology can has developed that no mandatory-to-implement security technology can
be specified in an IETF specification unless it has no known IPR be specified in an IETF specification unless it has no known IPR
claims against it or a royalty-free license is available to claims against it or a royalty-free license is available to all
implementers of the specification unless there is a very good reason implementers of the specification unless there is a very good reason
to do so. This limitation does not extend to other security to do so. This limitation does not extend to other security
technologies in the same specification if they are not listed as technologies in the same specification if they are not listed as
mandatory-to-implement. mandatory-to-implement.
It should also be noted that the absence of IPR disclosures is not It should also be noted that the absence of IPR disclosures at any
the same thing as the knowledge that there will be no IPR claims in given time is not the same thing as the knowledge that there will be
the future. People or organizations not currently involved in the no IPR disclosure in the future, or that no IPR Covers the relevant
technology. People or organizations not currently involved in the
IETF or people or organizations that discover IPR they feel to be IETF or people or organizations that discover IPR they feel to be
relevant in their patent portfolios can make IPR disclosures at any relevant in their patent portfolios can make IPR disclosures at any
time. time and ma, in fact, be required to do so under Section 6.
It should also be noted that the validity and enforceability of any It should be noted that the validity and enforceability of any IPR
IPR may be challenged for legitimate reasons, and the mere existence may be challenged for legitimate reasons outside the IETF. The mere
of an IPR disclosure should not automatically be taken to mean that existence of an IPR disclosure should not automatically be taken to
the disclosed IPR is valid or enforceable. Although the IETF can mean that the disclosed IPR is valid or enforceable. Although the
make no actual determination of validity, enforceability or IETF can make no actual determination of validity, enforceability or
applicability of any particular IPR claim, it is reasonable that a applicability of any particular IPR claim, it is reasonable that a
working group will take into account on their own opinions of the working group or the IESG will take into account on their own views
validity, enforceability or applicability of Intellectual Property of the validity, enforceability or applicability of IPR in their
Rights in their evaluation of alternative technologies. evaluation of alternative technologies.
9. Change Control for Technologies 8. Change Control for Technologies
The IETF must have change control over the technology described in The IETF must have change control over the technology described in
any standards track IETF Documents in order to fix problems that may any standards track IETF Documents in order to fix problems that may
be discovered or to produce other derivative works. be discovered or to produce other derivative works.
In some cases the developer of patented or otherwise controlled In some cases the developer of patented or otherwise controlled
technology may decide to hand over to the IETF the right to evolve technology may decide to hand over to the IETF the right to evolve
the technology (a.k.a., "change control"). The implementation of an the technology (a.k.a., "change control"). The implementation of an
agreement between the IETF and the developer of the technology can be agreement between the IETF and the developer of the technology can be
complex. (See [RFC1790] and [RFC2339] for examples.) complex. (See [RFC1790] and [RFC2339] for examples.)
Note that there is no inherent prohibition against a standards track Note that there is no inherent prohibition against a standards track
IETF Document making a normative reference to proprietary technology. IETF Document making a normative reference to proprietary technology.
For example, a number of IETF Standards support proprietary For example, a number of IETF Standards support proprietary
cryptographic transforms. cryptographic transforms.
10. Licensing Requirements to Advance Standards Track IETF Documents 9. Licensing Requirements to Advance Standards Track IETF Documents
RFC 2026 Section 4.1.2 states: "If patented or otherwise controlled RFC 6410 [RFC6410] Section 2.2 states: "If the technology required to
technology is required for implementation, the separate implement the specification requires patented or otherwise controlled
implementations must also have resulted from separate exercise of the technology, then the set of implementations must demonstrate at least
licensing process." A key word in this text is "required." The mere two independent, separate and successful uses of the licensing
process. " A key word in this text is "requires." The mere
existence of disclosed IPR does not necessarily mean that licenses existence of disclosed IPR does not necessarily mean that licenses
are actually required in order to implement the technology. Section are actually required in order to implement the technology.
4.1 of this document should be taken to apply to the case where there
are multiple implementations and none of the implementers have felt
that they needed to license the technology and they have no plausible
indications that any IPR holder(s) will try to enforce their IPR.
11. No IPR Disclosures in IETF Documents 10. No IPR Disclosures in IETF Documents
IETF and RFC Editor Documents must not contain any mention of IETF Documents must not contain any mention of specific IPR. All
specific IPR. All specific IPR disclosures must be submitted as specific IPR disclosures must be submitted as described in Section 5.
described in Section 6. Specific IPR disclosures must not be in the Readers should always refer to the on-line web page to get a full
affected IETF and RFC Editor Documents because the reader could be list of IPR disclosures received by the IETF concerning any
misled. The inclusion of a particular IPR disclosure in a document Contribution. (http://www.ietf.org/ipr/)
could be interpreted to mean that the IETF, IESG, or RFC Editor has
formed an opinion on the validity, enforceability, or applicability 11. Application to non-IETF Stream Documents
of the IPR. The reader could also be misled to think that the
included IPR disclosures are the only IPR disclosures the IETF has This memo has been developed for the benefit and use of the IETF
received concerning the IETF document. Readers should always refer community. As such, the rules set forth herein apply to all
to the on-line web page to get a full list of IPR disclosures Contributions and IETF Documents that are in the "IETF Document
received by the IETF concerning any Contribution. Stream" as defined in Section 5.1.1 of RFC 4844 (i.e., those that are
(http://www.ietf.org/ipr/) contributed, developed, edited and published as part of the IETF
Standards Process). The IAB Document Stream, the IRTF Document
Stream and the Independent Submission Stream, each as defined in
Section 5.1 of RFC 4844 are referred to collectively herein as
"Alternate Streams".
The legal rules that apply to documents in Alternate Streams are
established by the managers of those Alternate Streams as defined in
[RFC 4844]. (i.e., the Internet Architecture Board (IAB), Internet
Research Steering Group (IRSG) and Independent Submission Editor).
These managers may elect, through their own internal processes, to
cause this memo to be applied to documents contributed to them for
development, editing and publication in their respective Alternate
Streams. If an Alternate Stream manager elects to adopt this memo,
they must do so in a manner that is public and notifies their
respective document contributors that this memo applies to their
respective Alternate Streams. In such case, each occurrence of the
term "Contribution," and "IETF Document" in this memo shall be read
to mean a contribution or document in such Alternate Stream, as the
case may be. It would be advisable for such Alternate Stream manager
to consider adapting the definitions of "Contribution," and other
provisions in the memo to suit their particular needs.
12. Security Considerations 12. Security Considerations
This memo relates to IETF process, not any particular technology. This memo relates to IETF process, not any particular technology.
There are security considerations when adopting any technology, There are security considerations when adopting any technology,
whether IPR-protected or not. A working group should take those whether IPR-protected or not. A working group should take those
security considerations into account as one part of evaluating the security considerations into account as one part of evaluating the
technology, just as IPR is one part, but there are no known issues of technology, just as IPR is one part, but there are no known issues of
security with IPR procedures. security with IPR procedures.
13. References 13. Changes Since RFC 3979 and RFC 4879
13.1. Normative References [this section will be revised before publication to list the actual
changes that are approved]
This document combines RFC 3979 and RFC 4879.
Reordered the defined terms
Boilerplate -- since the document boilerplate formerly in BCP79 Sec.
5 has been moved to the Trust Legal Provisions since 2009, deleted
the boilerplate requirements from this document.
Foreign Counterparts -- don't need to file a new IPR disclosure
Provisional Apps -- suggest that these be required to be disclosed
only if they are filed with claims.
Inventor names -- added words requiring that inventors be listed
along with patent numbers.
Oral statements -- the existing text is internally contradictory.
Some places say that disclosures must be made for oral statements,
but others talk about disclosures only being required following
publication as an ID. Proposed that oral statements don't trigger
the normal IPR disclosure obligations, as oral statements are
inherently imprecise and it's hard to know when they describe
something covered by the technical terms of a patent claim.
However, if an oral contribution is made and it is not followed by
a written contribution, then the oral discloser must either make a
concurrent oral IPR disclosure or file a formal written
disclosure.
Other Contribution Clarification -- suggested a number of other
clarifications to the definition of Contribution that have come up
over the years, including the addition of BOFs.
WG Consideration of Patents -- this is mostly in the existing
language, but added a sentence saying that WGs should not engage
in collective licensing negotiation.
Disclosure of licensing terms is ok -- added a sentence.
Licensing commitments are irrevocable -- added a paragraph.
Lurkers -- this is a complicated issue that runs throughout the
document. At a high level, suggested that lurkers ARE required to
make IPR disclosures, to avoid a Rambus situation.
Penalties -- This paragraph outlining possible sanctions the IESG may
impose should be reconciled with the recent RFC that discusses
penalties.
Updating Disclosures - added a number of clauses to address issues
that have come up over the years, including updating obligations
if an employee changes jobs or his/her employer buys another
company.
Alternate Streams - borrowed and adapted the copyright language used
in the Trust Legal Provisions. Each alternate stream
(Independent, IRTF and IAB) would need to take some action
(preferably issuing an RFC) to adopt BCP 79 for its stream. This
was done with copyright already, and pretty smoothly.
IETF Exec Dir -- flagged the various places where the IETF Exec
Director is supposed to do something under this policy. Not sure
whether these things are getting done today or by whom. Need to
rationalize and update these procedures based on the current admin
structure.
Generally, also tried to cut back some of the historical and
explanatory text that seemed outdated
14. References
14.1. Normative References
[RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision [RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision
3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996. 3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.
[RFC2028] Hovey, R. and S. Bradner, "The Organizations Involved in [RFC2028] Hovey, R. and S. Bradner, "The Organizations Involved in
the IETF Standards Process", BCP 11, RFC 2028, October the IETF Standards Process", BCP 11, RFC 2028, October 1996.
1996.
[RFC2418] Bradner, S., "IETF Working Group Guidelines and [RFC4844] Daigle, L. Ed. and Internet Architecture Board, "The RFC
Procedures", BCP 25, RFC 2418, September 1998. Series and RFC Editor", RFC 4844, July 2007.
[RFC3978] Bradner, S., Ed., "IETF Rights in Contributions", BCP 78, [RFC6410] Housley, R., D. Crocker, and E. Burger, "Reducing the
RFC 3978, January 2005. Standards Track to Two Maturity Levels", RFC 6401, October 2011.
13.2. Informative References 14.2. Informative References
[RFC1790] Cerf, V., "An Agreement between the Internet Society and [RFC1790] Cerf, V., "An Agreement between the Internet Society and
Sun Microsystems, Inc. in the Matter of ONC RPC and XDR Sun Microsystems, Inc. in the Matter of ONC RPC and XDR
Protocols", RFC 1790, April 1995. Protocols", RFC 1790, April 1995.
[RFC2339] The Internet Society and Sun Microsystems, "An Agreement [RFC2339] The Internet Society and Sun Microsystems, "An Agreement
Between the Internet Society, the IETF, and Sun Between the Internet Society, the IETF, and Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Microsystems, Inc. in the matter of NFS V.4 Protocols", RFC in the matter of NFS V.4 Protocols", RFC 2339, May 1998.
2339, May 1998.
14. Acknowledgements [RFC5378] Bradner, S. Ed, J. Contreras, Ed, "Rights Contributors
Provide to the IETF Trust", RFC 5378, November 2008
The editor would like to acknowledge the help of the IETF IPR Working [RFC6701] Farrel, A., and P. Resnick, "Sanctions Available for
Group and, in particular the help of Jorge Contreras of Hale and Dorr Application to Violators of IETF IPR Policy", RFC 6702, August
for his careful legal reviews of this and other IETF IPR-related and 2012
process documents. The editor would also like to thank Valerie See
for her extensive comments and suggestions.
Editor's Address [RFC6702] Polk, T. and P. Saint-Andre, "Promoting Compliance with
Intellectual Property Rights (IPR)Disclosure Rules", RFC 6702,
August 2012
IANA Considerations
This memo requires no action by the IANA. [this section should be
removed for publication]
15. Editor's Addresses
Scott Bradner Scott Bradner
Harvard University Harvard University
29 Oxford St. 1350 Mass. Ave.
Cambridge MA, 02138 Cambridge MA, 02138
Phone: +1 617 495 3864 Phone: +1 617 495 3864
EMail: sob@harvard.edu EMail: sob@harvard.edu
Full Copyright Statement Jorge Contreras
American University
4801 Massachusetts Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20016
Email: cntreras@gmail.com
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). Changes in revisions of this document
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions version 00 -> version 01
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an many clean ups suggested by Russ Housley
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS removed "informational" from section 5.1.1
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Intellectual Property version 01 -> version 02
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any change RFC 2026 reference in section 9 to RFC 6410
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to fixed multiple references to (old) section 6
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in revised section 5.5 to clarify the intention, as suggested by David
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights Rudin
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any version 02 -> version 03
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any created a definition of "participation" in the definitions section as
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary suggested by multiple people
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement A number of changes suggested by Adrian Farrel
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf- expanded introduction by including a copy of the abstract
ipr@ietf.org. fixed reference to RFC 6701
add mention of RFC 6702 to the introduction and added RFC 6702 to
the references
removed last sentence of section 5.4.2 B
removed discussion of asking for info on non-US patents from
section 13
revised 5.4.2.C
added 5.4.2 D based on a suggestion by Alexa Morris
add note about inheritance to section 5.4.2.A
revise list of bullets for definition of contribution - section
1.b
added 5.5.D
fixed wording problem in 5.2.2 noted by SM
Acknowledgement version 03 -> version 04
revised definition of "Participating in an IETF discussion or
activity" section 1.k
changed language re "foreign" patents - section 5.4.2 B
removed mention of claims in provisional applications in section 1.d
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the version 04 -> version 05
Internet Society. revised section 1.k based on list discussion
tightened up section 4.B and removed the last sentence which
describes a function that does not seem to be done - suggested by
Fabian Gonell
change the requirement in section 5.1.1.B to a request - - suggested
by Fabian Gonell
replaced "withdraw" with "update" in 5.1.1.B since the disclosure is
still valid against the older Contribution
remove section 5.2.1.C as redundant - suggested by Fabian Gonell
added text from the mailing list discussion to Section 5.4.2
revised section 5.4.2.D to have the licensing information
requirements in one place. - suggested by Fabian Gonell
version 05 -> version 06
revised 1.k based on BOF and list discussion, added assumptive
participation for WG chairs & ADs
changed "should" in 4.C to reflect current practice
removed 5.1.1 B since the topic is covered in 5.4.3
added "with respect to issued patents and published patent
applications" in 5.4.1 based on BOF discussion
revised 5.4.2 A based on BOF discussion
removed 5.4.2 C since it was redundant
added parenthetical at the end of 5.5 A
added additional clause to 5.6 based on issue that came up
added 5.8 on general disclosures based on BOF discussion
revised 7 based on suggestions by Stephen Wegner and mailing list
discussions
removed the last sentence of 7 since the legal picture is changing
 End of changes. 98 change blocks. 
505 lines changed or deleted 663 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.34. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/