CURRENT_MEETING_REPORT_ Reported by Bernhard Stockman/Royal Institute of Technology and Erik Huizer/SURFnet Minutes of the Process for Organization of Internet Standards 95 Working Group (POISED95) Agenda o Charter o Nominations Committee (NomCom) o IPR o RFC 1602 o ISOC/IETF relationship Charter The charter contains the following items that the POISED95 Working Group is supposed to be working on: o NomCom o IPR o RFC 1602 o ISOC/IETF relationship o Other issues as appropriate Paul Mockapetris presented the results of the POISED95 BOF at the previous IETF. A short discussion was held to see if the list in the charter was OK. The following points were raised as needing attention: o How to control citation and usage of Internet standards by other standards bodies. o How to assure reasonable behavior of working group participants, and to assure some power for the working group chair. o An appeals process needs to be clearly specified. o The escape clause that allows the IESG to act on issues not covered by RFC 1602 et sui. o Integration of the ``Best Current Practices'' RFC proposal into the standards process. o Description of how working group chairs are chosen. o A clear description of how the IETF handles objections and exceptions. o ISOC liaisons with external standards organizations. It was agreed that none of these issues required a separate entry in the charter. POISED95 will concentrate on resolving internal IETF operations, and those issues mentioned above that apply to internal operations will be covered in the update of RFC 1602. It was remarked that continuity is important, and that might require writing down operational procedures. On the other hand, RFC 1602 is ``running code'' that needs updating in light of experience and changing circumstances. Conclusions: It was decided to remove the fifth bullet point (Other issues as appropriate) from the charter. Nominations Committee (NomCom) Most of the issues pertaining to operation of the NomCom have been discussed in previous POISED meetings or have been discussed by the chairs of previous nominations committees. Issues that need to be fixed can roughly be divided into: o Composition of the NomCom o Operation of the NomCom Conclusions: It was decided that a draft will be produced detailing the NomCom procedures which will then be discussed on the mailing list. This should result in a paper that is finished before the next NomCom starts it's work in November 1995. Jim Galvin volunteered to write the draft and was able to present an outline of the draft at the second session. A copy of his slides are included after the minutes. A short discussion followed indicating that the following additional points were considered relevant: o Sitting IAB confirms the IESG nominees o Which body announces the confirmed candidates? o NomCom should verify IESG candidates with relevant working group chairs o NomCom is/is not allowed to present a partial slate to confirming body? o Employer's consent for candidates is considered mandatory o Recall procedure can only be started if a threshold amount of people initiate procedure. o Only one recall procedure per IAB/IESG officer and per term of that officer is allowed. Jim will write a first draft and circulate it to the list for discussion. IPR The IPR subject, although covered by the current version of RFC 1602, remains an area of concern. Several issues around it were discussed: o Working groups that want to use patented technology as part of the protocol they are working on might get into a deadlock (e.g., PPP compression working group) for lack of willingness on the patent holders part to accept RFC 1602 wording. o (Non-)disclosure by working group participants of patents on technology they propose. o How (and who) does one decide what sorts of patents apply, and whether the conditions proposed by patent holders are acceptable? o Do we need a cookbook on solving IPR issues? o What are the costs involved? o Current wording seems to be ambiguous. Christian Huitema proposed an approach in line with IETF philosophy: A working group should try to avoid using patented technology. If it is unavoidable to use patented technology, do so and move the standard to Proposed ignoring patent issues. Then the standard can be implemented. If the patent prevents implementations, it will remain at Proposed, and eventually will move to Historic. If the patent does not prevent implementations of appearing, it can move forward through the standards process. We should also look at the way other bodies like IEEE have solved the IPR issue. Conclusions: There are three issues that can be distinguished within the IPR subject: 1. Transfer of patented technology (e.g. SUN RPC); Here we may find the solution by taking a close look at the way IEEE solved this. 2. Citation of patented technology; Here the approach described above (by Christian Huitema) seems the best way to deal with this. 3. (Non-)disclosure of patents; this is not solvable. However, it should be made such that working group participants are positively encouraged to disclose patents they know about. It was decided to submit through the IESG these three conclusions to Geoff Stewart, a lawyer currently assigned by ISOC to the IESG specifically to look at IPR issues. ISOC/IETF Relationship Vint Cerf presented an overview of what ISOC had done to work on the relationship: o Funded legal counsel for IESG, specifically for IPR issues o Established a budgetline for IETF at $250,000 per year o President of ISOC appointed the NomCom chair o Insurance coverage of IAB and IESG members o Established an ITU liaison o A vice-president for Standards was appointed (Scott Bradner) o ISOC signed (at IETF request) the agreement with SUN on transfer of responsibility for SUN's ONC RPC o Installed a committee with Christian Huitema as chair to address ISOC/IETF relationship A discussion followed in which it was claimed that ISOC should do more to prove itself. Words alone are not enough. ISOC should not become too ISOish. Issues that would benefit from ISOC attention: o US-independent funding of IANA and RFC Editor tasks o US independent funding of IETF secretariat o Support IETF meetings to create relief for local hosts (this is where part of the already allocated budget could go) o All in all: make IETF self-sufficient (i.e., neutral funding through ISOC) without taking control of the IETF It was concluded that this list of remarks will be sent to Christian Huitema for consideration in the ISOC committee on the IETF/ISOC relationship. The POISED95 Working Group will defer working on this issue until it gets input from: o The ISOC committee o The IETF chair (on how to spend the annual ISOC budget) After which the POISED95 Working Group will discuss the input and give it's recommendations. RFC 1602bis The following things were identified as needing changes in RFC 1602bis: o Escape clause; Robert Elz presented the IAB draft on this. This will be published shortly as an Internet-Draft. o Separate standards-track process from committee process (two documents). o IESG and IETF charters are needed. o Document the NomCom procedures separately (is being done in this working group). o Fix IPR (being discussed in this working group). o Caution against overlap and control with too many different documents detailing the process. o Document IAB appeals process (how should it be done, what are the possible results, what can IAB decide?). IAB is processing the appeal, it is not the judge. Maybe it should form a small committee for processing an appeal, depending on level of appeal? o BCP (Best Current Practices), if accepted, should be integrated into RFC 1602bis (i.e., publish BCP separately first so as not to delay it, but integrate it in RFC 1602 when working on that). o Document working group chairs in: - Appointment of working group chairs in RFC 1602bis - Removal and appeals in RFC 1602bis - Operations in RFC 1603 (bis), i.e., in procedures document Documenting might help to get formal and political support for working group chairs. This will probably be more helpful (in the case of a threatening lawsuit) than any insurance. o Make sure that fairness of process is clear and foremost. o Make sure that RFC 1602bis documents that copyright belongs to ISOC. A suggestion was made that all working group chairs and editors of documents should be employed by ISOC at $50/year to insure copyright. o Document that design teams and review teams can be formed as providing input and creating draft documents. They cannot however change consensus! Scott Bradner volunteered to take this list and start editing the existing RFC 1602bis draft. He will circulate a revised version to the list for discussion.