





Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                        S. Bradner
Request for Comments: 8179                            Harvard University
BCP: 79                                                     J. Contreras
Obsoletes: 3979, 4879                                 University of Utah
Updates: 2026                                                   May 2017
Category: Best Current Practice
ISSN: 2070-1721


            Intellectual Property Rights in IETF Technology

Abstract

   The IETF policies about Intellectual Property Rights (IPR), such as
   patent rights, relative to technologies developed in the IETF are
   designed to ensure that IETF working groups and participants have as
   much information as possible about any IPR constraints on a technical
   proposal as early as possible in the development process.  The
   policies are intended to benefit the Internet community and the
   public at large, while respecting the legitimate rights of IPR
   holders.  This document sets out the IETF policies concerning IPR
   related to technology worked on within the IETF.  It also describes
   the objectives that the policies are designed to meet.  This document
   updates RFC 2026 and, with RFC 5378, replaces Section 10 of RFC 2026.
   This document also obsoletes RFCs 3979 and 4879.

Status of This Memo

   This memo documents an Internet Best Current Practice.

   This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
   (IETF).  It represents the consensus of the IETF community.  It has
   received public review and has been approved for publication by the
   Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Further information on
   BCPs is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.

   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
   http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8179.












Bradner & Contreras       Best Current Practice                 [Page 1]

RFC 8179                  IP in IETF Technology                 May 2017


Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2017 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.





































Bradner & Contreras       Best Current Practice                 [Page 2]

RFC 8179                  IP in IETF Technology                 May 2017


Table of Contents

   1. Definitions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   3. Participation in the IETF  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   3.1. General Policy   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   3.2. Rights and Permissions in Contributions. . . . . . . . . . .  8
   3.3. Obligations on Participants  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   4.  Actions for Documents for Which IPR Disclosure(s)
       Have Been Received  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   5. IPR Disclosures  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   5.1. Who Must Make an IPR Disclosure? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   5.1.1.  A Contributor's IPR in His or Her Contribution  . . . . . 10
   5.1.2. An IETF Participant's IPR in Contributions by Others   . . 10
   5.1.3. IPR of Others  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   5.2. The Timing of Providing Disclosure . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   5.2.1. Timing of Disclosure under Section 5.1.1 . . . . . . . . . 11
   5.2.2. Timing of Disclosure under Section 5.1.2 . . . . . . . . . 11
   5.2.3. Timing of Disclosure by ADs and Others . . . . . . . . . . 12
   5.3. How Must an IPR Disclosure be Made?  . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   5.4. What Must be in an IPR Disclosure? . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   5.4.1. Content of IPR Disclosures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   5.4.2. Updating IPR Disclosures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   5.4.3. Blanket IPR Statements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   5.5. Licensing Information in an IPR Disclosure . . . . . . . . . 14
   5.6. Level of Control over IPR Requiring Disclosure . . . . . . . 15
   5.7. Disclosures for Oral Contributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
   5.8.  General Disclosures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
   6. Failure to Disclose  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
   7. Evaluating Alternative Technologies in IETF Working Groups . . 17
   8. Change Control for Technologies  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
   9. Licensing Requirements to Advance Standards Track
      IETF Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
   10. No IPR Disclosures in IETF Documents  . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
   11. Application to Non-IETF Stream Documents  . . . . . . . . . . 19
   12. Security Considerations   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
   13. Changes since RFCs 3979 and 4879  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
   14. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
   14.1. Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
   14.2. Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
   Editors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26










Bradner & Contreras       Best Current Practice                 [Page 3]

RFC 8179                  IP in IETF Technology                 May 2017


1.  Definitions

   The following definitions are for terms used in the context of this
   document.  Other terms, including "IESG," "ISOC," "IAB," and "RFC
   Editor," are defined in [RFC2028].

   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], along with any future non-IETF streams
      that might be defined.

   b. "Blanket IPR Statement" or "Blanket Disclosure": see Section
      5.4.3.

   c. "Contribution": any submission to the IETF intended by the
      Contributor for publication as all or part of an Internet-Draft or
      RFC and any statement made within the context of an IETF activity,
      in each case that is intended to affect the IETF Standards Process
      or that is related to the activity of an Alternate Stream that has
      adopted this policy.

      Such statements include oral statements, as well as written and
      electronic communications, which are addressed to:

      o  any IETF plenary session,

      o  any IETF working group (WG; see BCP 25) or portion thereof or
         any WG chair on behalf of the relevant WG,

      o  any IETF "birds of a feather" (BOF) session or portion thereof,

      o  WG design teams (see BCP 25) and other design teams that intend
         to deliver an output to IETF, or portions thereof,

      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  any IETF mailing list, web site, chat room, or discussion board
         operated by or under the auspices of the IETF, including the
         IETF list itself,

      o  the RFC Editor or the Internet-Drafts function.

      Statements made outside of an IETF session, mailing list, or other
      function, or that are clearly not intended to be input to an IETF
      activity, group, or function, are not Contributions in the context
      of this document.  And while the IETF's IPR rules apply in all



Bradner & Contreras       Best Current Practice                 [Page 4]

RFC 8179                  IP in IETF Technology                 May 2017


      cases, not all presentations represent a Contribution.  For
      example, many invited plenary, area-meeting, or research group
      presentations will cover useful background material, such as
      general discussions of existing Internet technology and products,
      and will not be a Contribution.  (Some such presentations can
      represent a Contribution as well, of course).  Throughout this
      document, the term "written Contribution" is used.  For purposes
      of this document, "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, email
      messages, discussion board postings, slide presentations, text
      messages, instant messages, and transcriptions of oral statements.

   d. "Contributor": an individual submitting a Contribution

   e. "Covers" or "Covered": a valid claim of a patent or a patent
      application (including a provisional patent application) in any
      jurisdiction, or any other Intellectual Property Right, would
      necessarily be infringed by the exercise of a right (e.g., making,
      using, selling, importing, distribution, copying, etc.) with
      respect to an Implementing Technology.  For purposes of this
      definition, "valid claim" means a claim of any unexpired patent or
      patent application which shall not have been withdrawn, cancelled,
      or disclaimed, nor held invalid by a court of competent
      jurisdiction in an unappealed or unappealable decision.

   f. "General Disclosure": see Section 5.8.

   g. "IETF": In the context of this document, the IETF includes all
      individuals who participate in meetings, working groups, mailing
      lists, functions, and other activities that are organized or
      initiated by ISOC, the IESG, or the IAB under the general
      designation of the Internet Engineering Task Force, or IETF, but
      solely to the extent of such participation.

   h. "IETF Documents": RFCs and Internet-Drafts that are published as
      part of the IETF Standards Process.  These are also referred to as
      "IETF Stream Documents" as defined in Section 5.1.1 of [RFC4844].

   i. "IETF Standards Process": the activities undertaken by the IETF in
      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 and Experimental documents (see Section 4 of
      [RFC2026]).




Bradner & Contreras       Best Current Practice                 [Page 5]

RFC 8179                  IP in IETF Technology                 May 2017


   j. "IPR" or "Intellectual Property Rights": means a patent, utility
      model, or similar right that may Cover an Implementing Technology,
      whether such rights arise from a registration or renewal thereof,
      or an application therefore, in each case anywhere in the world.
      See [RFC5378] for a discussion of trademarks.

   k. "Implementing Technology": a technology that implements an IETF
      specification or standard.

   l. "Internet-Draft": a document used in the IETF and RFC Editor
      processes, as described in Section 2.2 of [RFC2026].

   m. "Participating in an IETF discussion or activity": making a
      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(s) he or she is responsible for in an area.
      "Participant" and "IETF Participant" mean any individual
      Participating in an IETF discussion or activity.

   m. "Reasonably and personally known": something an individual knows
      personally or, because of the job the individual holds, would
      reasonably be expected to know.  This wording is used to indicate
      that an organization cannot purposely keep an individual in the
      dark about patents or patent applications just to avoid the
      disclosure requirement.  But this requirement should not be
      interpreted as requiring the IETF Contributor or Participant (or
      his or her represented organization, if any) to perform a patent
      search to find applicable IPR.

   o. "RFC": the basic publication series for the IETF.  RFCs are
      published by the RFC Editor.  (See Section 2.1 of [RFC2026].)

2.  Introduction

   The IETF policies about Intellectual Property Rights (IPR), such as
   patent rights, relative to technologies developed in the IETF are
   designed to ensure that IETF working groups and Participants have as
   much information as possible about any IPR constraints on a technical
   proposal as early as possible in the development process.  The
   policies are intended to benefit the Internet community and the
   public at large, while respecting the legitimate rights of IPR
   holders.  This document details the IETF policies concerning IPR
   related to technology worked on within the IETF.  It also describes





Bradner & Contreras       Best Current Practice                 [Page 6]

RFC 8179                  IP in IETF Technology                 May 2017


   the objectives that the policies are designed to meet.  This document
   updates RFC 2026 and, with RFC 5378, replaces Section 10 of RFC 2026.
   This document also obsoletes RFC 3979 and RFC 4879.

   There are three basic principles regarding how the IETF deals with
   claims of Intellectual Property Rights (originally outlined in
   Section 10 of [RFC2026]):

   (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 a 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 any 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
       Participant that are reasonably and personally known to the
       Participant.  No patent search is required.

   Section 1 defines the terms used in this document.  Sections 3
   through 11 set forth the IETF's policies and procedures relating to
   IPR.  Section 13 lists the changes between this document and RFCs
   3979 and 4879.  A separate document [RFC5378] deals with rights (such
   as copyrights and trademarks) in Contributions, including the right
   of the IETF and IETF Participants to publish and create derivative
   works of those Contributions.  This document is not intended to
   address those issues.  See RFC 6702 [RFC6702] for a discussion of
   "Promoting Compliance with Intellectual Property Rights (IPR)
   Disclosure Rules".

   This document is not intended as legal advice.  Readers are advised
   to consult their own legal advisors if they would like a legal
   interpretation of their rights or the rights of the IETF in any
   Contributions they make.








Bradner & Contreras       Best Current Practice                 [Page 7]

RFC 8179                  IP in IETF Technology                 May 2017


3.  Participation in the IETF

3.1.  General Policy

   In all matters relating to Intellectual Property Rights, the intent
   is to benefit the Internet community and the public at large, while
   respecting the legitimate rights of others.  The disclosures required
   by this policy are intended to help IETF working groups define
   superior technical solutions with the benefit of as much information
   as reasonably possible about potential IPR claims relating to
   technologies under consideration.

3.2.  Rights and Permissions in Contributions

   By submission of a Contribution, each person actually submitting the
   Contribution, and each named co-Contributor, is deemed to agree to
   the following terms and conditions on his or her own behalf and on
   behalf of the organizations the Contributor represents or is
   sponsored by (if any) when submitting the Contribution.

3.3.  Obligations on Participants

   By Participating in the IETF, each Participant is deemed to agree to
   comply with all requirements of this RFC that relate to Participation
   in IETF activities.  Without limiting the foregoing, each Participant
   that is a Contributor makes the following representations to the
   IETF:

   A. Such Contributor represents that he or she has made or will
      promptly make all disclosures required by Section 5.1.1 of this
      document.

   B. Such Contributor represents that there are no limits to the
      Contributor's ability to make the grants, acknowledgments, and
      agreements herein that are reasonably and personally known to the
      Contributor.

4.  Actions for Documents for Which IPR Disclosure(s) Have Been Received

   A. The IESG, IAB, ISOC, and IETF Trust disclaim any responsibility
      for identifying the existence of or for evaluating the
      applicability of any IPR, disclosed or otherwise, to any IETF
      technology, specification, or standard, and will take no position
      on the validity or scope of any such IPR.







Bradner & Contreras       Best Current Practice                 [Page 8]

RFC 8179                  IP in IETF Technology                 May 2017


   B. When the IETF Secretariat has received a notification under
      Section 5.1.3 of the existence of non-participant IPR that
      potentially Covers a technology under discussion at IETF or which
      is the subject of an IETF Document, the IETF Secretariat shall
      promptly publish such notification and will request that the
      identified third party make an IPR disclosure in accordance with
      the provisions of Section 5.

   C. When an IPR disclosure has been made as provided in Section 5 of
      this document, the IETF Secretariat may request from the purported
      holder of such IPR a written assurance that upon approval by the
      IESG for publication of the relevant IETF specification(s) as one
      or more RFCs, all persons will be able to obtain the right to
      implement, use, distribute, and exercise other rights with respect
      to Implementing Technology under one of the licensing options
      specified in Section 5.5.A below unless a statement identifying
      one of the licensing options described in Section 5.5.A has
      already been received by the IETF Secretariat.  The working group
      proposing the use of the technology with respect to which the
      Intellectual Property Rights are disclosed may assist the IETF
      Secretariat in this effort.

      The results of this procedure shall not, in themselves, block
      publication of an IETF Document or advancement of an IETF Document
      along the Standards Track.  A working group may take into
      consideration the results of this procedure in evaluating the
      technology, and the IESG may defer approval when a delay may
      facilitate obtaining such assurances.  The results will, however,
      be recorded by the IETF Secretariat and be made available online.

   D. The IESG will not make any determination that any terms for the
      use of an Implementing Technology (e.g., the assurance of
      reasonable and non-discriminatory terms) have been fulfilled in
      practice.  It will instead apply the normal requirements for the
      advancement of Internet Standards (see RFC 6410).  If the two
      unrelated implementations of the specification that are required
      to advance from Proposed Standard to Internet Standard have been
      produced by different organizations or individuals, or if the
      "significant implementation and successful operational experience"
      required to advance from Proposed Standard to Internet Standard
      has been achieved, the IESG will presume that the terms are
      reasonable and to some degree non-discriminatory.  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.




Bradner & Contreras       Best Current Practice                 [Page 9]

RFC 8179                  IP in IETF Technology                 May 2017


5.  IPR Disclosures

   This document refers to the IETF Participant making disclosures,
   consistent with the general IETF philosophy that Participants in the
   IETF act as individuals.  A Participant's obligation to make a
   disclosure is also considered satisfied if the IPR owner, which may
   be the Participant's employer or sponsor, makes an appropriate
   disclosure in place of the Participant doing so.

5.1.  Who Must Make an IPR Disclosure?

5.1.1.  A Contributor's IPR in His or Her Contribution

   Any Contributor who reasonably and personally knows of IPR meeting
   the conditions of Section 5.6 which the Contributor believes Covers
   or may ultimately Cover his or her written Contribution that is
   intended to be used as an input into the IETF Standards Process, or
   which the Contributor reasonably and personally knows his or her
   employer or sponsor may assert against Implementing Technologies
   based on such written Contribution, must make a disclosure in
   accordance with Section 5.

5.1.2.  An IETF Participant's IPR in Contributions by Others

   If an individual's Participation relates to a written Contribution
   made by somebody else that is intended to be used as an input into
   the IETF Standards Process, and such Participant reasonably and
   personally knows of IPR meeting the conditions of Section 5.6 which
   the Participant believes Covers or may ultimately Cover that
   Contribution, or which the Participant reasonably and personally
   knows his or her employer or sponsor may assert against Implementing
   Technologies based on such written Contribution, then such
   Participant must make a disclosure in accordance with Section 5.

5.1.3.  Voluntary IPR Disclosures

   If any person has information about IPR that may Cover a technology
   relevant to the IETF Standards Process, but such person is not
   required to disclose such IPR under Sections 5.1.1 or 5.1.2 above,
   such person is nevertheless encouraged to file an IPR disclosure as
   described in Section 5.3 below.  Such an IPR disclosure should be
   filed as soon as reasonably possible after the person realizes that
   such IPR may Cover a Contribution.  Situations in which such
   voluntary IPR disclosures may be made include when (a) IPR does not
   meet the criteria in Section 5.6 because it is not owned or
   controlled by an IETF Participant or his or her sponsor or employer
   (referred to as third party IPR), (b) an individual is not required
   to disclose IPR meeting the requirements of Section 5.6 because that



Bradner & Contreras       Best Current Practice                [Page 10]

RFC 8179                  IP in IETF Technology                 May 2017


   individual is not Participating in the relevant IETF activity, or (c)
   the IPR Covers technology that does not yet meet the criteria for a
   Contribution hereunder (e.g., it is disclosed in an informal or other
   non-IETF setting).

5.2.  The Timing of Disclosure

   Timely IPR disclosure is important because working groups need to
   have as much information as they can while they are evaluating
   alternative solutions.

5.2.1.  Timing of Disclosure under Section 5.1.1

   A. The IPR disclosure required pursuant to Section 5.1.1 must be made
      as soon as reasonably possible after the Contribution is submitted
      or made unless the required disclosure is already on file.  See
      Section 5.4.2 for a discussion of when updates need to be made for
      an existing disclosure.

   B. If a Contributor first learns of IPR in its Contribution that
      meets the conditions of Section 5.6, for example a new patent
      application or the discovery of a relevant patent in a patent
      portfolio, after the Contribution is published in an Internet-
      Draft, a disclosure must be made as soon as reasonably possible
      after the IPR becomes reasonably and personally known to the
      Contributor.

5.2.2.  Timing of Disclosure under Section 5.1.2

   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.

   Participants who realize that IPR meeting the conditions of Section
   5.6 may Cover technology that will be or has been incorporated into a
   Contribution, or is seriously being discussed in a working group, are
   strongly encouraged to make a preliminary IPR disclosure.  That IPR
   disclosure should be made as soon after coming to the realization as
   reasonably possible, not waiting until the Contribution is actually
   made.

   If an IETF Participant first learns of IPR that meets the conditions
   of Section 5.6 that may Cover a Contribution by another party, for
   example a new patent application or the discovery of a relevant
   patent in a patent portfolio, after the Contribution is made, an IPR
   disclosure must be made as soon as reasonably possible after the
   Contribution or IPR becomes reasonably and personally known to the
   Participant.



Bradner & Contreras       Best Current Practice                [Page 11]

RFC 8179                  IP in IETF Technology                 May 2017


5.2.3.  Timing of Disclosure by ADs and Others

   By the nature of their office, IETF Area Directors or persons
   assisting them may become aware of Contributions late in the process
   (for example at IETF Last Call or during IESG review) and, therefore
   in such cases, cannot reasonably be expected to disclose IPR Covering
   those Contributions until they become aware of them.

5.3.  How Must an IPR Disclosure be Made?

   IPR disclosures must be made by following the instructions at
   <https://www.ietf.org/ipr-instructions>.  IPR disclosures and other
   IPR-related information, including licensing information, must not be
   included in RFCs or other IETF Contributions.  The RFC Editor will
   remove any IPR-related information from Contributions prior to
   publication as an RFC.

5.4.  What Must Be in an IPR Disclosure?

5.4.1.  Content of IPR Disclosures

   An IPR disclosure must include the following information to the
   extent reasonably available to the discloser: (a) the numbers of any
   issued patents or published patent applications (or indicate that the
   disclosure is based on unpublished patent applications), (b) the
   name(s) of the inventor(s) (with respect to issued patents and
   published patent applications), (c) the specific IETF Document(s) or
   activity affected, and (d) if the IETF Document is an Internet-Draft,
   its specific version number.  In addition, if it is not reasonably
   apparent which part of an IETF Document is allegedly Covered by
   disclosed IPR, then it is helpful if the discloser identifies the
   sections of the IETF Document that are allegedly Covered by such
   disclosed IPR.

5.4.2.  Updating IPR Disclosures

   Those who disclose IPR should be aware that as Internet-Drafts
   evolve, text may be added or removed, and it is recommended that they
   keep this in mind when composing text for disclosures.

   A. Unless sufficient information to identify the issued patent was
      disclosed when the patent application was disclosed, 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, (2) the abandonment of
      a patent application, (3) the issuance of a patent on a previously
      disclosed patent application, or (4) a material change to the IETF
      Document covered by the Disclosure that causes the Disclosure to



Bradner & Contreras       Best Current Practice                [Page 12]

RFC 8179                  IP in IETF Technology                 May 2017


      be covered by additional IPR.  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.

   B. If an IPR holder files patent applications in additional countries
      which refer to, and the claims of which are substantially
      identical to, the claims of a patent or patent application
      previously disclosed in an IPR disclosure, the IPR holder is not
      required to make a new or updated IPR disclosure as a result of
      filing such applications or the issuance of patents on such
      applications.

   C. New or revised IPR disclosures may be made voluntarily at any
      other time, provided that licensing information may only be
      updated in accordance with Section 5.5.C.

   D. Any person may submit an update to an existing IPR disclosure.  If
      such update is submitted by a person other than the submitter of
      the original IPR disclosure (as identified by name and email
      address), then the IETF Secretariat shall attempt to contact the
      original submitter to verify the update.  If the original
      submitter responds that the proposed update is valid, the
      Secretariat will update the IPR disclosure accordingly.  If the
      original submitter responds that the proposed update is not valid,
      the IETF Secretariat will not update the IPR disclosure.  If the
      original submitter fails to respond after the IETF Secretariat has
      made three separate inquiries and at least 30 days have elapsed
      since the initial inquiry was made, then the IETF Secretariat will
      inform the 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 IETF
      Secretariat, after consultation with the IETF legal counsel, then
      the IETF Secretariat will make the requested update.  If such
      evidence is not satisfactory, then the IETF Secretariat will not
      make the requested update.

5.4.3.  Blanket IPR Statements

   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



Bradner & Contreras       Best Current Practice                [Page 13]

RFC 8179                  IP in IETF Technology                 May 2017


   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.

5.5.  Licensing Information in an IPR Disclosure

   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 (e.g., a
      covenant not to sue with or without defensive suspension, as
      described in Section 7).

   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, then the discloser may 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 URLs 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
      royalties.

   C. It is likely that IETF will rely on licensing declarations and
      other information that may be contained in an IPR disclosure and
      that implementers will make technical, legal, and commercial
      decisions on the basis of such commitments and information.  Thus,



Bradner & Contreras       Best Current Practice                [Page 14]

RFC 8179                  IP in IETF Technology                 May 2017


      when licensing declarations and other information, comments,
      notes, or URLs for further information are contained in an IPR
      disclosure, the persons making such disclosure agree and
      acknowledge that the commitments and information contained in such
      disclosure shall be irrevocable and will attach, to the extent
      permissible by law, 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 such IPR
      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
      transferee of the relevant IPR, and that such transferee will use
      reasonable efforts to ensure that such commitments are binding on
      a subsequent transferee of the relevant IPR, and so on.

   D. Licensing declarations must be made by people who are authorized
      to make such declarations as discussed in Section 5.6 of this
      document.

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 (a) that is owned, directly or indirectly, by the
   individual Contributor or his/her employer or sponsor (if any), or
   (b) that such persons otherwise have the right to license or assert,
   or (c) from which such persons derive a direct or indirect pecuniary
   benefit, or (d) as to which an individual Contributor is listed as an
   inventor on the relevant 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

   As described in Section 5.3, the IETF will make available a public
   facility (e.g., a web page and associated database) for the posting
   of IPR disclosures conforming with the disclosure requirements of
   this policy.  In addition, the IETF may make available a public



Bradner & Contreras       Best Current Practice                [Page 15]

RFC 8179                  IP in IETF Technology                 May 2017


   facility for the posting of other IPR-related information and
   disclosures that do not satisfy the requirements of this policy but
   which may otherwise be informative and relevant to the IETF ("General
   Disclosures").  Such General Disclosures may include, among other
   things, "blanket disclosures" that do not contain a royalty-free
   licensing commitment as described in 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
   of patent applications or other IPR.  Since disclosure is required
   for anyone making a Contribution or Participating in IETF activities,
   a person who is not willing or able to disclose IPR for this reason,
   or any other reason, must not contribute to or participate in IETF
   activities with respect to technologies that he or she reasonably and
   personally knows may be Covered by IPR which he or she will not
   disclose, unless that person knows that his or her employer or
   sponsor will make the required disclosures on his or her behalf.

   Contributing to or Participating in IETF activities about a
   technology without making required IPR disclosures is a violation of
   IETF policy.

   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), sanctions
   are available through the normal IETF processes for handling



Bradner & Contreras       Best Current Practice                [Page 16]

RFC 8179                  IP in IETF Technology                 May 2017


   disruptions to IETF work.  See [RFC6701] for details regarding the
   sanctions defined in various existing Best Current Practice
   documents.

7.  Evaluating Alternative Technologies in IETF Working Groups

   In general, IETF working groups prefer technologies with no known IPR
   claims or, for technologies with claims against them, an offer of
   royalty-free licensing.  However, to solve a given technical problem,
   IETF working groups have the discretion to adopt a technology as to
   which IPR claims have been made if they feel that this technology is
   superior enough to alternatives with fewer IPR claims or free
   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.

   A. When adopting new technologies, the participants in an IETF
      working group are expected to evaluate all the relevant tradeoffs
      from their perspective.  Most of the time these considerations are
      based purely on technical excellence, but IPR considerations may
      also affect the evaluation and specific licensing terms may affect
      the participants' opinion on the desirability of adopting a
      particular technology.

   B. The IETF has no official preference among different licensing
      terms beyond what was stated at the beginning of this section.
      However, for information and to assist participants in
      understanding what license conditions may imply, what follows are
      some general observations about some common types of conditions.
      The following paragraphs are provided for information only:

   C. When there is no commitment to license patents covering the
      technology, this creates uncertainty that obviously is concerning.
      These concerns do not exist when there is a commitment to license,
      but the license terms can still differ greatly.  Some common
      conditions include 1) terms that are fair, reasonable, and non-
      discriminatory, and which may bear royalties or other financial
      obligations (FRAND or RAND); 2) royalty-free terms that are
      otherwise fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (RAND-z); and
      3) commitments not to assert declared IPR, possibly conditional on
      reciprocity.  Open source projects, for instance, often prefer the
      latter two.  Note that licenses often come with complex terms that
      have to be evaluated in detail, and this crude classification may
      not be sufficient to make a proper evaluation.  For instance,
      licenses may also include reciprocity and defensive suspension
      requirements that require careful evaluation.




Bradner & Contreras       Best Current Practice                [Page 17]

RFC 8179                  IP in IETF Technology                 May 2017


   D. 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.

   E. IETF working groups and IETF areas may, however, adopt stricter
      requirements in specific cases.  For instance, the IETF Security
      Area has adopted stricter requirements for some security
      technologies.  It has become common to have a mandatory-to-
      implement security technology in IETF technology specifications.
      This is to ensure that there will be at least one common security
      technology present in all implementations of such a specification
      that can be used in all cases.  This does not limit the
      specification from including other security technologies, the use
      of which could be negotiated between implementations.  An IETF
      consensus has developed that no mandatory-to-implement security
      technology can be specified in an IETF specification unless it has
      no known IPR claims against it or a royalty-free license is
      available to implementers of the specification.  It is possible to
      specify such a technology in violation of this principle if there
      is a very good reason to do so and if that reason is documented
      and agreed to through IETF consensus.  This limitation does not
      extend to other security technologies in the same specification if
      they are not listed as mandatory to implement.

   F. It should also be noted that the absence of IPR disclosures at any
      given time is not the same thing as the knowledge that there will
      be 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 relevant in their patent portfolios can make IPR
      disclosures at any time.

   G. It should be noted that the validity and enforceability of any IPR
      may be challenged for legitimate reasons outside the IETF.  The
      mere existence of an IPR disclosure should not be taken to mean
      that the disclosed IPR is valid or enforceable or actually Covers
      a particular Contribution.  Although the IETF can make no actual
      determination of validity, enforceability, or applicability of any
      particular IPR, it is reasonable that individuals in a working
      group or the IESG will take into account their own views of the
      validity, enforceability, or applicability of IPR in their
      evaluation of alternative technologies.





Bradner & Contreras       Best Current Practice                [Page 18]

RFC 8179                  IP in IETF Technology                 May 2017


8.  Change Control for Technologies

   The IETF must have change control over the technology described in
   any Standards Track IETF Documents in order to fix problems that may
   be discovered or to produce other derivative works.

   In some cases, the developer of patented or otherwise controlled
   technology may decide to hand over to the IETF the right to evolve
   the technology (a.k.a., "change control").  The implementation of an
   agreement between the IETF and the developer of the technology can be
   complex.  (See [RFC1790] and [RFC2339] for examples.)

   Note that there is no inherent prohibition against a Standards Track
   IETF Document making a normative reference to proprietary technology.
   For example, a number of IETF standards support proprietary
   cryptographic transforms.

9.  Licensing Requirements to Advance Standards Track IETF Documents

   Section 2.2 of RFC 6410 [RFC6410] states:

      If the technology required to implement the specification requires
      patented or otherwise controlled technology, then the set of
      implementations must demonstrate at least 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 are actually
   required in order to implement the technology.

10.  No IPR Disclosures in IETF Documents

   IETF Documents must not contain any mention of specific IPR.  All
   specific IPR disclosures must be submitted as described in Section 5.
   Readers should always refer to the online web page
   <https://www.ietf.org/ipr/> to get a full list of IPR disclosures
   received by the IETF concerning any Contribution.

11.  Application to Non-IETF Stream Documents

   This document has been developed for the benefit and use of the IETF
   community.  As such, the rules set forth herein apply to all
   Contributions and IETF Documents that are in the "IETF Document
   Stream" as defined in Section 5.1.1 of [RFC4844] (i.e., those that
   are contributed, developed, edited, and published as part of the IETF
   Standards Process).





Bradner & Contreras       Best Current Practice                [Page 19]

RFC 8179                  IP in IETF Technology                 May 2017


   The rules that apply to documents in Alternate Streams are
   established by the managers of those Alternate Streams (currently the
   Internet Architecture Board (IAB), Internet Research Steering Group
   (IRSG), and Independent Submission Editor, as specified in
   [RFC4844]).  These managers may elect, through their own internal
   processes, to cause this document 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 document, they must do so in a manner that is
   public and notifies their respective document Contributors that this
   document applies to their respective Alternate Streams.  In such
   case, each occurrence of the term "Contribution" and "IETF Document"
   in this document 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 managers to consider adapting the definitions
   of "Contribution" and other provisions in this document to suit their
   particular needs.

12.  Security Considerations

   This document relates to the IETF process, not any particular
   technology.  There are security considerations when adopting any
   technology, whether IPR protected or not.  A working group should
   take those security considerations into account as one part of
   evaluating the technology, just as IPR is one part, but there are no
   known issues of security with IPR procedures.

13.  Changes since RFCs 3979 and 4879

   The material in RFC 3979 was significantly reorganized to produce
   this document.  This section reviews the actual changes in content
   since RFC 3979 and does not detail the reorganization.  These changes
   are listed from the point of view of this document with reference to
   the RFC 3979 section where useful.  This section is intended only as
   an informational summary of the text contained in Sections 1-12 of
   this document.  This section does not constitute the official policy
   of the IETF and should not be referred to or quoted as such.  Any
   discrepancies or ambiguities shall be resolved in favor of the
   language contained in Sections 1-12 of this document.

   Boilerplate - Since the document boilerplate formerly in Section 5 of
      RFC 3979 has been moved to the Trust Legal Provisions since 2009,
      the boilerplate requirements have been deleted from this document.








Bradner & Contreras       Best Current Practice                [Page 20]

RFC 8179                  IP in IETF Technology                 May 2017


   1 - Definitions

      1.a - "Alternate Stream" definition (new): Added to enable IRTF,
         IAB, and Independent Submission streams to adopt and use BCP 79
         more easily.

      1.c - "Contribution" (was 1.c)

            Removed "IETF" to more easily enable other Streams to adopt
            this policy.

            Added "intended to affect the IETF Standards Process", which
            is needed to prevent information presentations (e.g.,
            plenary guest speakers) from being considered Contributions.

            Added BOF, design team, web site, and chat room.
            Contributions can be made in any of these places.

      1.e - "Covers" (was 1.n) - Added "provisional patent application"
         - Required to eliminate ambiguity whether provisional
         applications are included.

      1.h - "IETF Documents" (was 1.h) - Limited to IETF (not Alternate
         Stream) documents.

      1.i - "IETF Standards Process" (was 1.b) - Clarify that
         Contributions can be made in contexts other than traditional
         IETF standards development.

      1.j - "IPR" (was 1.o) - Removed reference to copyrights, database
         rights, and data rights.  Copyright in IETF Documents and
         contributions is addressed under RFC 5378 and is treated very
         differently than patents, which are the focus of BCP 79.
         Data/database rights not relevant to IETF standards, and cannot
         be registered or disclosed in the manner of patents.

      1.l - "Internet-Draft" (was 1.g) - Reduced to reference RFC 2026
         without additional description for clarity.

      1.m - "Participating in an IETF discussion or activity" (new) -
         Due to numerous ambiguities over the years, it was necessary to
         add a section describing what it means to "participate" in an
         IETF activity.

      1.o - "RFC" (was 1.e) - Added cross-reference to RFC 2026 and
         eliminated textual description of RFC permanence.





Bradner & Contreras       Best Current Practice                [Page 21]

RFC 8179                  IP in IETF Technology                 May 2017


   2 - Introduction - Added text that offers an overview of why we have
      this policy, cut prior discussion of Section 10 of RFC 2026 as no
      longer necessary, and added references to subsequent RFCs relating
      to IPR, including RFC 5378 and 6702.

   3 - Participation in the IETF (was "Contributions to the IETF") -
      Changed focus to participation rather than making of Contributions
      and explained why we require IPR disclosure.

   old 3.2.1.C - Deleted because all required legends in IETF Documents
      are now described in RFC 5378 and Trust Legal Provisions.

   3.3 - Obligations on Participants - Added to make clear that
      participation in IETF obligates the participant to comply with
      IETF rules.

   old 4.A - Removed because inconsistent with current and historical
      practice.  Also, all legends in IETF Documents are now addressed
      in Trust Legal Provisions.

   4.A - "The IESG, IAB..." - Added IAB, ISOC, and IETF Trust to
      disclaimer.

   4.B - "When the IETF Secretariat..." - Added description of current
      procedure used to publish third party IPR disclosures.

   4.C - "When an IPR disclosure..." - Updated to reflect current
      practice and roles (e.g., Secretariat rather than IETF Exec Dir).

   4.D - Determination of Provision of Reasonable and Non-discriminatory
      Terms (was Section 4.1) - Various edits made to this paragraph to
      reflect current process for advancement of standards.

   old 5 - Deleted because it was not needed.

   5.1.1 - Contributor's IPR in His or Her Contribution (was Section
      6.1.1) - Limits disclosure obligation to written Contributions
      intended to be used as inputs to the IETF Standards Process.  Oral
      disclosures are now covered in Section 5.7.

   5.1.2 - An IETF Participant's IPR in Contributions by Others (was
      Section 6.1.2) - Revisions made consistent with Section 5.1.1
      above.








Bradner & Contreras       Best Current Practice                [Page 22]

RFC 8179                  IP in IETF Technology                 May 2017


   5.1.3 -  Voluntary IPR Disclosures (was Section 6.1.3) - Fixes
      procedures for making voluntary IPR disclosures and adds examples
      of when voluntary disclosures may be appropriate.  In addition to
      IPR of others, voluntary disclosures are encouraged when an IETF
      Participant is aware of its own IPR that covers IETF work in which
      it is not an active participant and when the technology is
      disclosed in other than an IETF setting.

   5.2.1 - Timing of Disclosure under Section 5.1.1 (was Section 6.2.1)
      - Trigger for disclosure changed from publication of a
      Contribution in an I-D to "submitted or made"; lengthy example
      regarding updates deleted in lieu of cross-reference to Section
      5.4.2 regarding updates.

   5.2.2 - Timing of Disclosure under Section 5.1.2 (was Section 6.2.2)
      - Corresponding changes made per Section 5.2.1.

   5.2.3 - Timing of Disclosure by ADs - Added to clarify AD disclosure
      obligations.

   5.3 - "IPR disclosures and other..." - Reflects current practice
      regarding prohibition of including IPR information directly in
      IETF Documents.

   5.4.1 - Content of IPR Disclosures (was Section 6.4.1) - Added
      requirement to disclose names of inventors - Disclosing the
      name(s) of inventors on a patent will make it more likely that
      IETF Participants will recognize whether the inventor is an IETF
      Participant and what IETF activities that individual participates
      in.  This information is easy for the discloser to provide and
      less convenient for every reader of the IPR disclosure to look up
      in patent office records (if even available).

   5.4.2 - Updating IPR Disclosures (was Section 6.4.2) - Significant
      revisions and additional detail added regarding updating of IPR
      disclosures upon events such as issuance of patents, amendment of
      claims, employee changing jobs, employer acquires another company,
      etc.

   5.4.2.D - Clarify that additional IPR disclosures are not needed for
      foreign counterparts.

   5.4.3 - Blanket IPR Statements (was Section 6.4.3) - wording
      clarifications and changed "willingness" to "commitment".  A
      blanket IPR disclosure which does not list specific patent numbers
      is not compliant with this policy unless the discloser commits
      (and is not just willing) to license such patents on royalty-free
      and otherwise reasonable terms.



Bradner & Contreras       Best Current Practice                [Page 23]

RFC 8179                  IP in IETF Technology                 May 2017


   5.5.C - "It is likely that IETF will rely ..." (new paragraph) -
      Makes licensing declarations irrevocable so that they may be
      relied upon in the future by implementers.

   5.5.D - "Licensing declarations ..." (new paragraph) - Requires that
      licensing declarations must be made by people authorized to make
      them.

   5.6 - Level of Control over IPR Requiring Disclosure (was Section
      6.6) - In addition to ownership of IPR, language added to require
      disclosure when Participants derive a pecuniary benefit from the
      IPR, or the individual is a listed inventor - Clarifications to
      address situations not covered in earlier version.

   5.7 - Disclosures for Oral Contributions (new): Describes procedure
      for oral Contributions.  Previously, statements regarding oral
      statements were contradictory.  Some places said that disclosures
      must be made for oral statements, but others talk about
      disclosures only being required following publication as an I-D.
      Under new text, 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.

   5.8 - General Disclosures (new) - Describes the IETF's public
      disclosure feature, which allows IPR disclosures to be made by
      anyone, whether or not an IETF Participant.  The feature has been
      up and running for years, and this language describes its current
      implementation.

   6 - Failure to Disclose (was Section 7) - Technical and clarity
      corrections, as well as new language describing potential remedies
      for failures to disclose IPR in accordance with IETF rules,
      including IESG actions described in RFC 6701.

   7 - Evaluating Alternative Technologies in IETF Working Groups (was
      Section 8).

      Paragraph 1 - Minor wording changes for clarity.

      Paragraphs 2-5 (new) - Relate to the considerations made by IETF
          WGs when evaluating patent and licensing disclosures
         concerning IETF standards.




Bradner & Contreras       Best Current Practice                [Page 24]

RFC 8179                  IP in IETF Technology                 May 2017


      Paragraph 6 - security technologies (new) - Makes clear that
         security is only one example of stricter requirements.  Also
         requires that violation of requirements for royalty-free
         licensing in the security area can be made only with IETF
         consensus.

      Paragraphs 7-8 (were paragraphs 3-4) - Wording changes for
         clarity.

   9 - Licensing Requirements to Advance Standards Track IETF Documents
      (was Section 10) - Wording updated to reflect RFC 6410.

   10 - No IPR Disclosures in IETF Documents (was Section 11) - Wording
      simplified to refer to Section 5.

   11 - Application to Non-IETF Stream Documents (new) - Adds procedures
      to be followed by Alternate Stream (IAB, IRTF, Independent
      Submission) managers to adopt these rules and procedures.
      Borrowed and adapted the copyright language used in the Trust
      Legal Provisions.  Each Alternate Stream (Independent Submission,
      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.

14.  References

14.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision
             3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, DOI 10.17487/RFC2026, October 1996,
             <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2026>.

   [RFC2028] Hovey, R. and S. Bradner, "The Organizations Involved in
             the IETF Standards Process", BCP 11, RFC 2028,
             DOI 10.17487/RFC2028, October 1996,
             <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2028>.

   [RFC4844] Daigle, L., Ed., and Internet Architecture Board, "The RFC
             Series and RFC Editor", RFC 4844, DOI 10.17487/RFC4844,
             July 2007, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4844>.

   [RFC6410] Housley, R., Crocker, D., and E. Burger, "Reducing the
             Standards Track to Two Maturity Levels", BCP 9, RFC 6410,
             DOI 10.17487/RFC6410, October 2011,
             <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6410>.






Bradner & Contreras       Best Current Practice                [Page 25]

RFC 8179                  IP in IETF Technology                 May 2017


14.2.  Informative References

   [RFC1790] Cerf, V., "An Agreement between the Internet Society and
             Sun Microsystems, Inc. in the Matter of ONC RPC and XDR
             Protocols", RFC 1790, DOI 10.17487/RFC1790, April 1995,
             <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1790>.

   [RFC2339] The Internet Society and Sun Microsystems, "An Agreement
             Between the Internet Society, the IETF, and Sun
             Microsystems, Inc. in the matter of NFS V.4 Protocols",
             RFC 2339, DOI 10.17487/RFC2339, May 1998,
             <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2339>.

   [RFC5378] Bradner, S., Ed., and J. Contreras, Ed., "Rights
             Contributors Provide to the IETF Trust", BCP 78, RFC 5378,
             DOI 10.17487/RFC5378, November 2008,
             <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5378>.

   [RFC6701] Farrel, A. and P. Resnick, "Sanctions Available for
             Application to Violators of IETF IPR Policy", RFC 6701,
             DOI 10.17487/RFC6701, August 2012,
             <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6701>.

   [RFC6702] Polk, T. and P. Saint-Andre, "Promoting Compliance with
             Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) Disclosure Rules",
             RFC 6702, DOI 10.17487/RFC6702, August 2012,
             <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6702>.

Editors' Addresses

   Scott Bradner
   15 High St.
   Cambridge, MA  02138
   United States of America

   Phone: +1 202 558 5661
   Email: sob@sobco.com


   Jorge Contreras
   University of Utah
   S.J. Quinney College of Law
   383 South University St.
   Salt Lake City, UT  84112
   United States of America

   Email:  cntreras@gmail.com




Bradner & Contreras       Best Current Practice                [Page 26]

