As per Relevance of the word practice, we have this rfc below:
Network Working Group F.
Request for Comments: 1915 FTP Software, Inc
BCP: 3 February 1996
Category: Best Current
Variance
The PPP Connection Control
The PPP Encryption Control
Status of this
This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for
Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions
improvements. Distribution of this memo is unlimited
Table of
1. Variance ............................................. 1
1.1 The Problem ......................................... 1
1.1.1 History ........................................... 1
1.1.2 Other Attempted Solutions ......................... 2
1.2 Variance to Procedures in RFC 1602 .................. 2
1.3 The Solution ........................................ 3
1.4 Perceived Benefits .................................. 3
1.5 Perceived Risks ..................................... 3
Security Considerations ................................. 3
Author's Address ........................................ 3
2. Appendix A -- Most Recent Communication from Motorola. 4
3. APPENDIX B -- Relevant Section of RFC 1602 ........... 5
1.
1.1. The
1.1.1.
The PPP Working group has developed two protocols, one to
compression on PPP links; the Compression Control Protocol (CCP),
documented in draft-ietf-pppext-compression-04.txt. The second is
Encryption Control Protocol (ECP), used to control encryption
serial links, documented in draft-ietf-pppext-encryption-03.txt
During the development of these protocols, the Motorola
informed the IETF that they may infringe on certain patents held
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
to the IESG for standardization. At this point, because of
outstanding patent claims, their progress was halted. Per
procedures of RFC 1602, the IESG Secretariat attempted to gain
licenses required by RFC 1602. In particular, per section 5.6 of
1602, an attempt was made to acquire a form of the license and
it publically available via the Internet
Motorola would prefer to provide a general statement indicating
licenses will be made available "to any party under reasonable
and conditions that are demonstrably free of unfair discrimination."
1.1.2. Other Attempted
An attempt was made to have the PPP working group develop
versions of CCP and ECP that would not infringe on the patents.
technically possible, the proposed technical changes are viewed
some members of the working group as much less technically
than the original CCP and ECP and, in fact, these members have
quite clearly that they will implement the original CCP regardless
the protocol standardized by the working group or accepted by
IESG. Note that while other members of the working group accepted
proposed changes, they did so more out of a sense that it was
only viable alternative rather than because of the alternative'
technical merits. In short, technical changes did not meet with
IETF's traditional benchmark of Rough Consensus
1.2. Variance to Procedures in RFC 1602
The variance to the procedures of RFC 1602 are as follows
Section 5.6 of RFC 1602 (relevant portions are included as
B) requires that, to use proprietary technology in an
Standard, the holder of the technology 1) Agree to provide the ISOC
free license to use the technology and to grant to others a
to use the technology on fair and non-discriminatory terms, 2) That
form of this license be made electronically available on
Internet, and 3) That anyone may execute this license by
a copy of the form, fulfilling its requirements, and mailing
executed copy to the licenser. Standards track documents are
allowed to advance until these conditions are met
The variance proposed in this request would allow the CCP and ECP
advance onto the standards track without meeting the
conditions. All that the community would obtain would be an
from the license holder that it will make licenses available
Kastenholz Best Current Practice [Page 2]
RFC 1915 PPP ECP and CCP Variance February 1996
1.3. The
Within the Variance Procedure (published as RFC 1871), the
grants a variance on behalf of the PPP Working Group, to
procedures of RFC 1602 to allow the IESG to adopt the CCP and ECP
originally developed. The IESG accepts the statement by G.
Forney of Motorola, date 5 June 1995, (attached as Appendix A)
Motorola will make licenses available to use the technology
by U.S. patents 5,245,614 and 5,130,993.
1.4. Perceived
The benefit to the community in adopting this procedure is that
IESG would then be able to standardize the CCP and ECP and
community would gain a standardized method of controlling
compression and encryption on PPP links. That this protocol has
under development for well over a year shows that the
provided by the protocol are needed in the community
1.5. Perceived
This variance will raise the possibility that licenses are
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
the IETF's long, honorable, and successful, tradition of openness
equal access to technology
Security
Security issues are not discussed in this memo
Author's
Frank
FTP Software,
2 High
North Andover, Mass 01845-2620
EMail: kasten@ftp.
Kastenholz Best Current Practice [Page 3]
RFC 1915 PPP ECP and CCP Variance February 1996
2. Appendix A -- Most Recent Communication from
The following is an email message received by Steve Coya,
Director of the IETF, presenting Motorola's terms and conditions
From: Dave_Forney-LUSE27@email.mot.
Date: 5 Jun 95 12:08:46 -0600
To: scoya@CNRI.Reston.VA.
Cc: John_Fisher-AJF003@email.mot.com, Dj_Stockley-ADS002@email.mot.com
Ray_Wood-ARW004@email.mot.
Subject: RE: License agreement for CCP and
Message-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
some time, and has already provided it to several
companies. It would be most unusual, however, to attach such
agreement to a standard. Providing contact information
suffice. It could say something like this
***
Motorola, Inc. has advised the IETF that it holds two patents that
believes to be essential to the CCP and ECP standards, U.S. 5,245,614
and U.S. 5,130,993, and has declared its willingness to make
to these patents available to any party under reasonable terms
conditions that are demonstrably free of unfair discrimination
Parties interested in obtaining such a license may contact
Mr. John A.
Vice President and Intellectual Property Licensing
Motorola, Inc
1303 E. Algonquin
Schaumburg, Ill. 60196
***
I trust that this statement will be satisfactory
Sincerely
G. David Forney, Jr
Vice
Kastenholz Best Current Practice [Page 4]
RFC 1915 PPP ECP and CCP Variance February 1996
3. APPENDIX B -- Relevant Section of RFC 1602
5.6.
The agreement on assurances set forth below will normally
entered into between the owner of rights and ISOC at the time
standards track document in which proprietary rights are
reaches the "Proposed Standard" stage of maturity
This is an agreement between ______________(
called "Rights Holder") and the Internet Society on behalf
itself and its trustees, officers, employees, contractors
agents, the Internet Architecture Board, Internet
Steering Group, Internet Engineering Task Force, and other
forces, committees and groups coordinated by the Internet
(hereinafter called "ISOC"), and for the benefit of all users
the Internet and users of any other networks which implement
use Internet Standards (hereinafter together with ISOC
"Internet community"). This agreement takes effect when signed
behalf of the Rights Holder and the Internet Society
The Rights Holder represents that it has or will have
in patent applications, patents, copyrights, trade secrets,
other proprietary rights in various countries (hereinafter
"Rights") which may block or impede the ability of the
community to implement and operate under the standards set
in ISOC standards document ____,____, and ____(the
standards and any similar or related standards now existing
later developed are together hereinafter called "Standards").
Rights as they presently exist are listed on attached Schedule A
The Rights Holder further agrees to review the Rights listed
Schedule A from time to time, and, in particular,
prior to the elevation of the Standards to the Internet
level of maturity in accordance with the Internet
Process, and to inform the Executive Director of the
Engineering Task Force Secretariat promptly upon learning of
new Rights in the Standards that should be added to the list
Schedule A
The Rights Holder believes and affirms that it will
benefits by permitting ISOC and the Internet community
implement and operate under the Standards without interference
any of the Rights. The policy of ISOC is not to propose, adopt
or continue to maintain the Standards unless written
are given by the Rights Holder with respect to proprietary rights
Accordingly, in consideration of the benefits noted above
other good and valuable consideration, the Rights Holder makes
assurances 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
implementing and operating under the Standards. The
extends to all activities of ISOC involving the Standards
limit, including the rights to reproduce, distribute, propose
test, develop, analyze, enhance, revise, adopt, maintain
withdraw, perform and display publicly, and prepare
works in any form whatsoever and in all languages, and
authorize others to do so. The Rights Holder also grants
permission to use the name and address of Rights Holder
connection with the Standards
The Rights Holder relinquishes any right or claim in
trade secret which is part of the Rights, and makes the
secrets available without restriction to the Internet community
The Rights Holder hereby acknowledges that ISOC assumes
obligation to maintain any confidentiality with respect to
aspect of the Standards, and warrants that the Standards do
violate the rights of others
The Rights Holder assures ISOC that the Rights Holder
grant to any member of the Internet community, as a beneficiary
this agreement, a non-exclusive, perpetual, world-wide
under the Rights, with respect to operating under the
for a reasonable royalty and under other terms which
reasonable considering the objective of ISOC to assure that
members of the Internet community will be able to operate
the Standards at a minimal cost. The license discussed in
paragraph shall permit the licensee to make, have made, test
enhance, implement, and use methods, works, computer programs,
hardware as needed or desirable for operating under the Standards
Every license shall include a clause automatically modifying
terms of the license to be as favorable as the terms of any
license under the Rights previously or later granted by the
Holder
A form of the license shall always be publicly accessible
the Internet, and shall become effective immediately when
member of the Internet community executes it and posts it
delivery to the Rights Holder either by mail or electronically
The initial version of the license shall be in the form
as 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
sufficient to permit it to grant the licenses and give the
assurances recited in this agreement. The Rights Holder
represents and warrants that it does not know of any rights of
other party in any country which would block or impede the
of ISOC and the Internet community to implement or operate
the Standards, or that would prevent the Rights Holder
granting the licenses and other assurances in this agreement
This agreement shall not be construed to obligate the ISOC
propose, adopt, develop, or maintain any of the Standards or
other standard
Kastenholz Best Current Practice [Page 7]
if you see any problems within the linking, don't worry be happy,
this is version 0.1 of the Relevance System and you gotta expect some crappy subroutines sometimes,
just be content we did not write this in Java, which would have made this "bigger and better" HAHAHHA.
RFC documents can be found at I.E.T.F.
Relevance System Copyright © 2002 Spectrum WorldResearch
other technical nosh by ServerMasters Corporation
collaboration of BobX
