faqs.org - Internet FAQ Archives

RFC 1915 - Variance for The PPP Compression Control Protocol and


Or Display the document by number




Network Working Group                                      F. Kastenholz
Request for Comments: 1915                            FTP Software, Inc.
BCP: 3                                                     February 1996
Category: Best Current Practice

                              Variance for
                  The PPP Connection Control Protocol
                                  and
                  The PPP Encryption Control Protocol

Status of this Memo

   This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the
   Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
   improvements.  Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

Table of Contents

   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.  Variance

1.1.  The Problem

1.1.1.  History

   The PPP Working group has developed two protocols, one to control
   compression on PPP links; the Compression Control Protocol (CCP),
   documented in draft-ietf-pppext-compression-04.txt. The second is the
   Encryption Control Protocol (ECP), used to control encryption on
   serial links, documented in draft-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.

   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 of RFC 1602, the IESG Secretariat attempted to gain the
   licenses required by RFC 1602. In particular, per section 5.6 of RFC
   1602, 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 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 Appendix
   B) 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.

1.3.  The Solution

   Within the Variance Procedure (published as RFC 1871), the IESG
   grants a variance on behalf of the PPP Working Group, to the
   procedures of RFC 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 as Appendix 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.com

2.  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.com
Date: 5 Jun 95 12:08:46 -0600
To: scoya@CNRI.Reston.VA.US
Cc: John_Fisher-AJF003@email.mot.com, Dj_Stockley-ADS002@email.mot.com,
    Ray_Wood-ARW004@email.mot.com
Subject: RE: License agreement for CCP and ECP
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 for
some time, and has already provided it to several requesting
companies.  It would be most unusual, however, to attach such an
agreement to a standard.  Providing contact information should
suffice.  It could say something like this:

***
Motorola, Inc. has advised the IETF that it holds two patents that it
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 licenses
to these patents available to any party under reasonable terms and
conditions that are demonstrably free of unfair discrimination.
Parties interested in obtaining such a license may contact:

Mr. John A. Fisher
Vice President and Intellectual Property Licensing Counsel
Motorola, Inc.
1303 E. Algonquin Road
Schaumburg, Ill. 60196
***

  I trust that this statement will be satisfactory.

  Sincerely,

  G. David Forney, Jr.
  Vice President

3.  APPENDIX B -- Relevant Section of RFC 1602

5.6.  Assurances

The agreement on assurances set forth below will normally be
entered into between the owner of rights and ISOC at the time a
standards track document in which proprietary rights are claimed
reaches the "Proposed Standard" stage of maturity:

     This is an agreement between ______________(hereinafter
called "Rights Holder") and the Internet Society on behalf of
itself and its trustees, officers, employees, contractors and
agents, the Internet Architecture Board, Internet Engineering
Steering Group, Internet Engineering Task Force, and other task
forces, committees and groups coordinated by the Internet Society
(hereinafter called "ISOC"), and for the benefit of all users of
the Internet and users of any other networks which implement and
use Internet Standards (hereinafter together with ISOC called
"Internet community").  This agreement takes effect when signed on
behalf of the Rights Holder and the Internet Society.

     The Rights Holder represents that it has or will have rights
in patent applications, patents, copyrights, trade secrets, and
other proprietary rights in various countries (hereinafter called
"Rights") which may block or impede the ability of the Internet
community to implement and operate under the standards set forth
in ISOC standards document ____,____, and ____(the listed
standards and any similar or related standards now existing or
later developed are together hereinafter called "Standards").  The
Rights as they presently exist are listed on attached Schedule A.
The Rights Holder further agrees to review the Rights listed in
Schedule A from time to time, and, in particular, immediately
prior to the elevation of the Standards to the Internet Standard
level of maturity in accordance with the Internet Standards
Process, and to inform the Executive Director of the Internet
Engineering Task Force Secretariat promptly upon learning of any
new Rights in the Standards that should be added to the list in
Schedule A.

     The Rights Holder believes and affirms that it will derive
benefits by permitting ISOC and the Internet community to
implement and operate under the Standards without interference of
any of the Rights.  The policy of ISOC is not to propose, adopt,
or continue to maintain the Standards unless written assurances
are given by the Rights Holder with respect to proprietary rights.
Accordingly, in consideration of the benefits noted above and
other good and valuable consideration, the Rights Holder makes the
assurances set forth herein.

     The Rights Holder grants to ISOC a cost-free, perpetual,
non-exclusive, world-wide license under the Rights with respect to
implementing and operating under the Standards.  The license
extends to all activities of ISOC involving the Standards without
limit, including the rights to reproduce, distribute, propose,
test, develop, analyze, enhance, revise, adopt, maintain,
withdraw, perform and display publicly, and prepare derivative
works in any form whatsoever and in all languages, and to
authorize others to do so.  The Rights Holder also grants ISOC
permission to use the name and address of Rights Holder in
connection with the Standards.

     The Rights Holder relinquishes any right or claim in any
trade secret which is part of the Rights, and makes the trade
secrets available without restriction to the Internet community.
The Rights Holder hereby acknowledges that ISOC assumes no
obligation to maintain any confidentiality with respect to any
aspect of the Standards, and warrants that the Standards do not
violate the rights of others.

     The Rights Holder assures ISOC that the Rights Holder shall
grant to any member of the Internet community, as a beneficiary of
this agreement, a non-exclusive, perpetual, world-wide license
under the Rights, with respect to operating under the Standards
for a reasonable royalty and under other terms which are
reasonable considering the objective of ISOC to assure that all
members of the Internet community will be able to operate under
the Standards at a minimal cost.  The license discussed in this
paragraph shall permit the licensee to make, have made, test,
enhance, implement, and use methods, works, computer programs, and
hardware as needed or desirable for operating under the Standards.
Every license shall include a clause automatically modifying the
terms of the license to be as favorable as the terms of any other
license under the Rights previously or later granted by the Rights
Holder.

     A form of the license shall always be publicly accessible on
the Internet, and shall become effective immediately when the
member of the Internet community executes it and posts it for
delivery to the Rights Holder either by mail or electronically.
The initial version of the license shall be in the form attached
as Schedule B.

     The Rights Holder represents and warrants that its rights are
sufficient to permit it to grant the licenses and give the other
assurances recited in this agreement.  The Rights Holder further
represents and warrants that it does not know of any rights of any
other party in any country which would block or impede the ability
of ISOC and the Internet community to implement or operate under
the Standards, or that would prevent the Rights Holder from
granting the licenses and other assurances in this agreement.

     This agreement shall not be construed to obligate the ISOC to
propose, adopt, develop, or maintain any of the Standards or any
other standard.

 

User Contributions:

Comment about this RFC, ask questions, or add new information about this topic:

CAPTCHA