Movatterモバイル変換

Network Working Group                                      F. KastenholzRequest for Comments: 1915                            FTP Software, Inc.BCP: 3                                                     February 1996Category: Best Current PracticeVariance forThe PPP Connection Control Protocoland                  The PPP Encryption Control ProtocolStatus 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.Table of Contents1. Variance .............................................11.1 The Problem .........................................11.1.1 History ...........................................11.1.2 Other Attempted Solutions .........................21.2 Variance to Procedures inRFC 1602 ..................21.3 The Solution ........................................31.4 Perceived Benefits ..................................31.5 Perceived Risks .....................................3   Security Considerations .................................3   Author's Address ........................................3   2.Appendix A -- Most Recent Communication from Motorola.    43. APPENDIX B -- Relevant Section ofRFC 1602 ...........51.  Variance1.1.  The Problem1.1.1.  History   The PPP Working group has developed two protocols, one to control   compression on PPP links; the Compression Control Protocol (CCP),   documented indraft-ietf-pppext-compression-04.txt. The second is the   Encryption Control Protocol (ECP), used to control encryption on   serial links, documented indraft-ietf-pppext-encryption-03.txt.   During the development of these protocols, the Motorola Corporation   informed the IETF that they may infringe on certain patents held by   Motorola, specificlally U.S. patents 5,245,614 and 5,130,993.Kastenholz               Best Current Practice                  [Page 1]

RFC 1915                PPP ECP and CCP Variance           February 1996   After development of the protocols was completed, they were submitted   to the IESG for standardization. At this point, because of the   outstanding patent claims, their progress was halted. Per the   procedures ofRFC 1602, the IESG Secretariat attempted to gain the   licenses required byRFC 1602. In particular, per section 5.6 ofRFC1602, an attempt was made to acquire a form of the license and make   it publically available via the Internet.   Motorola would prefer to provide a general statement indicating that   licenses will be made available "to any party under reasonable terms   and conditions that are demonstrably free of unfair discrimination."1.1.2.  Other Attempted Solutions   An attempt was made to have the PPP working group develop revised   versions of CCP and ECP that would not infringe on the patents. While   technically possible, the proposed technical changes are viewed by   some members of the working group as much less technically desireable   than the original CCP and ECP and, in fact, these members have stated   quite clearly that they will implement the original CCP regardless of   the protocol standardized by the working group or accepted by the   IESG. Note that while other members of the working group accepted the   proposed changes, they did so more out of a sense that it was the   only viable alternative rather than because of the alternative's   technical merits. In short, technical changes did not meet with the   IETF's traditional benchmark of Rough Consensus.1.2.  Variance to Procedures inRFC 1602   The variance to the procedures ofRFC 1602 are as follows.Section 5.6 of RFC 1602 (relevant portions are included asAppendixB) requires that, to use proprietary technology in an Internet   Standard, the holder of the technology 1) Agree to provide the ISOC a   free license to use the technology and to grant to others a license   to use the technology on fair and non-discriminatory terms, 2) That a   form of this license be made electronically available on the   Internet, and 3) That anyone may execute this license by downloading   a copy of the form, fulfilling its requirements, and mailing an   executed copy to the licenser. Standards track documents are not   allowed to advance until these conditions are met.   The variance proposed in this request would allow the CCP and ECP to   advance onto the standards track without meeting the above   conditions. All that the community would obtain would be an assurance   from the license holder that it will make licenses available.Kastenholz               Best Current Practice                  [Page 2]

RFC 1915                PPP ECP and CCP Variance           February 19961.3.  The Solution   Within the Variance Procedure (published asRFC 1871), the IESG   grants a variance on behalf of the PPP Working Group, to the   procedures ofRFC 1602 to allow the IESG to adopt the CCP and ECP as   originally developed. The IESG accepts the statement by G.  David   Forney of Motorola, date 5 June 1995, (attached asAppendix A) that   Motorola will make licenses available to use the technology covered   by U.S. patents 5,245,614 and 5,130,993.1.4.  Perceived Benefits   The benefit to the community in adopting this procedure is that the   IESG would then be able to standardize the CCP and ECP and the   community would gain a standardized method of controlling data   compression and encryption on PPP links. That this protocol has been   under development for well over a year shows that the capabilities   provided by the protocol are needed in the community.1.5.  Perceived Risks   This variance will raise the possibility that licenses are not   granted in a fair and non-discriminatory manner. The license holder,   if it were so inclined, could treat each request differently,   advancing some, delaying others, and so on. This would be counter to   the IETF's long, honorable, and successful, tradition of openness and   equal access to technology.Security Considerations   Security issues are not discussed in this memo.Author's Address   Frank Kastenholz   FTP Software, Inc   2 High Street   North Andover, Mass 01845-2620 USA   EMail: kasten@ftp.comKastenholz               Best Current Practice                  [Page 3]

RFC 1915                PPP ECP and CCP Variance           February 19962.Appendix A -- Most Recent Communication from Motorola   The following is an email message received by Steve Coya, Executive   Director of the IETF, presenting Motorola's terms and conditions.From: Dave_Forney-LUSE27@email.mot.comDate: 5 Jun 95 12:08:46 -0600To: scoya@CNRI.Reston.VA.USCc: John_Fisher-AJF003@email.mot.com, Dj_Stockley-ADS002@email.mot.com,    Ray_Wood-ARW004@email.mot.comSubject: RE: License agreement for CCP and ECPMessage-Id: <"Macintosh */PRMD=MOT/ADMD=MOT/C=US/"@MHS>Dear Mr. Coya:  Thank you for your e-mail message of June 1.Motorola has had a license agreement for these patents available forsome time, and has already provided it to several requestingcompanies.  It would be most unusual, however, to attach such anagreement to a standard.  Providing contact information shouldsuffice.  It could say something like this:***Motorola, Inc. has advised the IETF that it holds two patents that itbelieves to be essential to the CCP and ECP standards, U.S. 5,245,614and U.S.  5,130,993, and has declared its willingness to make licensesto these patents available to any party under reasonable terms andconditions that are demonstrably free of unfair discrimination.Parties interested in obtaining such a license may contact:Mr. John A. FisherVice President and Intellectual Property Licensing CounselMotorola, Inc.1303 E. Algonquin RoadSchaumburg, Ill. 60196***  I trust that this statement will be satisfactory.  Sincerely,  G. David Forney, Jr.  Vice PresidentKastenholz               Best Current Practice                  [Page 4]

RFC 1915                PPP ECP and CCP Variance           February 19963.  APPENDIX B -- Relevant Section ofRFC 16025.6.  AssurancesThe agreement on assurances set forth below will normally beentered into between the owner of rights and ISOC at the time astandards track document in which proprietary rights are claimedreaches the "Proposed Standard" stage of maturity:     This is an agreement between ______________(hereinaftercalled "Rights Holder") and the Internet Society on behalf ofitself and its trustees, officers, employees, contractors andagents, the Internet Architecture Board, Internet EngineeringSteering Group, Internet Engineering Task Force, and other taskforces, committees and groups coordinated by the Internet Society(hereinafter called "ISOC"), and for the benefit of all users ofthe Internet and users of any other networks which implement anduse Internet Standards (hereinafter together with ISOC called"Internet community").  This agreement takes effect when signed onbehalf of the Rights Holder and the Internet Society.     The Rights Holder represents that it has or will have rightsin patent applications, patents, copyrights, trade secrets, andother proprietary rights in various countries (hereinafter called"Rights") which may block or impede the ability of the Internetcommunity to implement and operate under the standards set forthin ISOC standards document ____,____, and ____(the listedstandards and any similar or related standards now existing orlater developed are together hereinafter called "Standards").  TheRights as they presently exist are listed on attached Schedule A.The Rights Holder further agrees to review the Rights listed inSchedule A from time to time, and, in particular, immediatelyprior to the elevation of the Standards to the Internet Standardlevel of maturity in accordance with the Internet StandardsProcess, and to inform the Executive Director of the InternetEngineering Task Force Secretariat promptly upon learning of anynew Rights in the Standards that should be added to the list inSchedule A.     The Rights Holder believes and affirms that it will derivebenefits by permitting ISOC and the Internet community toimplement and operate under the Standards without interference ofany of the Rights.  The policy of ISOC is not to propose, adopt,or continue to maintain the Standards unless written assurancesare given by the Rights Holder with respect to proprietary rights.Accordingly, in consideration of the benefits noted above andother good and valuable consideration, the Rights Holder makes theassurances set forth herein.Kastenholz               Best Current Practice                  [Page 5]

RFC 1915                PPP ECP and CCP Variance           February 1996     The Rights Holder grants to ISOC a cost-free, perpetual,non-exclusive, world-wide license under the Rights with respect toimplementing and operating under the Standards.  The licenseextends to all activities of ISOC involving the Standards withoutlimit, including the rights to reproduce, distribute, propose,test, develop, analyze, enhance, revise, adopt, maintain,withdraw, perform and display publicly, and prepare derivativeworks in any form whatsoever and in all languages, and toauthorize others to do so.  The Rights Holder also grants ISOCpermission to use the name and address of Rights Holder inconnection with the Standards.     The Rights Holder relinquishes any right or claim in anytrade secret which is part of the Rights, and makes the tradesecrets available without restriction to the Internet community.The Rights Holder hereby acknowledges that ISOC assumes noobligation to maintain any confidentiality with respect to anyaspect of the Standards, and warrants that the Standards do notviolate the rights of others.     The Rights Holder assures ISOC that the Rights Holder shallgrant to any member of the Internet community, as a beneficiary ofthis agreement, a non-exclusive, perpetual, world-wide licenseunder the Rights, with respect to operating under the Standardsfor a reasonable royalty and under other terms which arereasonable considering the objective of ISOC to assure that allmembers of the Internet community will be able to operate underthe Standards at a minimal cost.  The license discussed in thisparagraph shall permit the licensee to make, have made, test,enhance, implement, and use methods, works, computer programs, andhardware as needed or desirable for operating under the Standards.Every license shall include a clause automatically modifying theterms of the license to be as favorable as the terms of any otherlicense under the Rights previously or later granted by the RightsHolder.     A form of the license shall always be publicly accessible onthe Internet, and shall become effective immediately when themember of the Internet community executes it and posts it fordelivery to the Rights Holder either by mail or electronically.The initial version of the license shall be in the form attachedas Schedule B.Kastenholz               Best Current Practice                  [Page 6]

RFC 1915                PPP ECP and CCP Variance           February 1996     The Rights Holder represents and warrants that its rights aresufficient to permit it to grant the licenses and give the otherassurances recited in this agreement.  The Rights Holder furtherrepresents and warrants that it does not know of any rights of anyother party in any country which would block or impede the abilityof ISOC and the Internet community to implement or operate underthe Standards, or that would prevent the Rights Holder fromgranting the licenses and other assurances in this agreement.     This agreement shall not be construed to obligate the ISOC topropose, adopt, develop, or maintain any of the Standards or anyother standard.Kastenholz               Best Current Practice                  [Page 7]