`_____________________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________________________________________
`
`VALVE CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`PALTALK HOLDINGS, INC.,
`Patent Owner
`
`_____________________________________________
`
`Case Nos.:
`
`IPR2018-01238; IPR2018-01241; IPR2018-01242; and
`IPR2018-01243
`
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`DECLARATION OF DAVID H. CROCKER
`
`Petitioner Valve – Ex. 1026, Cover
`
`
`
`Declaration of David H. Crocker
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
`
`The Internet Engineering Task Force (“IETF”) .............................................. 2
`
`III. Requests for Comments (“RFCs”) .................................................................. 3
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Overview and History ........................................................................... 3
`
`RFC Approval Process .......................................................................... 4
`
`Publication and Dissemination of RFCs ............................................... 6
`
`RFC Editor’s Official Repository ......................................................... 7
`
`IV.
`
`Publication of Specific RFCs .......................................................................... 9
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`RFC 1692: Transport Multiplexing Protocol (TMux) ......................... 9
`
`RFC 791: Internet Protocol DARPA Internet Program Protocol
`Specification ........................................................................................ 10
`
`RFC 1001: Protocol Standard for a NetBIOS Service on a TCP/UDP
`Transport: Concepts and Methods ..................................................... 12
`
`RFC 1459: Internet Relay Chat Protocol ........................................... 13
`
`i
`
`Petitioner Riot Games, Inc. - Ex. 1026, p. i
`
`Petitioner Valve - Ex. 1026, p. i
`
`
`
`1011
`
`Internet Protocol DARPA Internet Program Protocol Specification,
`RFC 791 (Sept. 1981)
`
`1018
`
`Protocol Standard for a NetBIOS Service on a TCP/UDP Transport:
`
`Declaration of David H. Crocker
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`n Exhibit Description
`1010
`Transport Multiplexing Protocol (TMUX), RFC 1692 (Aug. 1994)
`
`Concepts and Methods, RFC 1001 (Mar. 1987)
`
`ii
`
`Petitioner Valve - Ex. 1026, p. ii
`
`Petitioner Riot Games, Inc. - Ex. 1026, p. ii
`
`Petitioner Valve - Ex. 1026, p. ii
`
`
`
`Declaration of David H. Crocker
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`1.
`
`I, David H. Crocker, make this declaration. I am over 21 and
`
`otherwise competent to make this declaration.
`
`2.
`
`All statements herein made of my own knowledge are true, and all
`
`statements herein made based on information and belief are believed to be true.
`
`Unless a specific time period is noted, all statements herein refer to the time period
`
`relevant to the above-captioned proceeding.
`
`3.
`
`I am a principal at Brandenburg InternetWorking (“Brandenburg”),
`
`which I founded in 1991, and I have participated in the development of technical
`
`specifications for the Internet and its predecessor, the Advanced Research Projects
`
`Agency Network (“ARPANET”), since 1972. I understand that my CV has been
`
`filed as Exhibit 1027.
`
`4.
`
`I have been retained by counsel for Petitioner as an expert witness in
`
`the above-captioned proceeding. I have been asked to provide my opinion about
`
`the publication status of several Request for Comments (“RFC”) documents. My
`
`opinions in this declaration are informed by my substantial background and
`
`expertise in the RFC development and publication process, as well as the specific
`
`RFC documents I discuss below and the other evidence I cite in this declaration.
`
`Although I am being compensated for my time in preparing this declaration, the
`
`opinions herein are my own.
`
`1
`
`Petitioner Riot Games, Inc. - Ex. 1026, p. 1
`
`Petitioner Valve - Ex. 1026, Page 1
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of David H. Crocker
`
`II. The Internet Engineering Task Force (“IETF”)
`
`5.
`
`The principal Internet technical standards body is the Internet
`
`Engineering Task Force (“IETF”). The IETF produces technical documents
`
`relating to the design, use, and management of the Internet. The IETF has no
`
`formal membership or membership requirements, and all participants and
`
`managers are volunteers; it has a very small paid support staff.
`
`6.
`
`Prior to 1997, the IETF was entirely or partially supported by the U.S.
`
`government. Since then, the IETF has been independently funded by participants
`
`and through its association with the Internet Society, which is an international
`
`membership-based non-profit organization.
`
`7.
`
`The IETF comprises working groups that are organized into areas by
`
`subject matter. Each IETF area is overseen by an Area Director. The Area
`
`Directors, together with the IETF Chair, form the Internet Engineering Steering
`
`Group (“IESG”), which is responsible for the overall operation of the IETF. I was
`
`the first Area Director for the area of Network Management. I served as an Area
`
`Director for six years, from 1989 to 1995.
`
`8.
`
`The IETF’s Administrative Oversight Committee (“IAOC”)
`
`comprises ten members and provides logistical and administrative support for the
`
`IETF. I served on the IAOC for two years, from 2011 to 2013.
`
`2
`
`Petitioner Riot Games, Inc. - Ex. 1026, p. 2
`
`Petitioner Valve - Ex. 1026, Page 2
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of David H. Crocker
`
`9.
`
`The IETF Nominating Committee (“NomCom”) comprises ten voting
`
`members and is vested with the power to select members of the IESG, IAOC, and
`
`two related groups, the Internet Architecture Board (“IAB”) and the IETF
`
`Administrative Support Activity. I served on the NomCom for a total of five one-
`
`year terms between 1995 and 2013.
`
`10.
`
`IETF working groups comprise experts and other individuals
`
`interested in the working group topic. Each working group has a chairperson who
`
`is appointed by the Area Director. I have chaired several working groups,
`
`including Fax (facsimile over email) and EDI (electronic data interchange).
`
`III. Requests for Comments (“RFCs”)
`
`A. Overview and History
`
`11. The IETF oversees the development and publication of standards and
`
`related documents. These are published as RFCs, which are documents that
`
`describe methods, procedures, protocols, specifications, and similar concepts
`
`related to the Internet or Internet-connected systems. RFCs are widely considered
`
`by the Internet technical community to be the official documents for the standards
`
`that govern the design, use, and management of core Internet services. RFCs are
`
`maintained as part of a single document series. The RFC document series was
`
`established by my brother, Dr. Stephen D. Crocker, in 1969.
`
`3
`
`Petitioner Riot Games, Inc. - Ex. 1026, p. 3
`
`Petitioner Valve - Ex. 1026, Page 3
`
`
`
`Declaration of David H. Crocker
`
`12.
`
`The RFC document series has been well-known throughout the
`
`Internet technical community since 1969. Anyone working in the areas of the
`
`Internet or Internet-connected systems would have been aware of the RFC
`
`document series, would have considered RFCs widely publicly accessible, and
`
`would have known where and how to find copies of RFCs. My opinion is
`
`informed by my numerous experiences evaluating, discussing, and retrieving RFCs
`
`with other members of the Internet technical community around the world.
`
`13.
`
`The formal process of preparing, publishing, and widely distributing
`
`RFCs is a very important part of Internet culture, which works to develop
`
`standards in an open and transparent process. It is also important to the adoption
`
`of these standards and the stability and functionality of the Internet for developers
`
`to adhere to standards and evolving best practices.
`
`14.
`
`I have authored more than 60 RFCs and have contributed to the
`
`development of many others. I have been involved with the development of RFCs
`
`since 1972. I consider myself an expert with respect to RFC development and their
`
`publication process.
`
`B.
`
`RFC Approval Process
`
`15. RFCs are developed through several activity streams, one of which is
`
`pursuant to the IETF’s Internet Standards Process. The formal Internet Standards
`
`Process has been in existence since the late 1980s, although its essential
`
`4
`
`Petitioner Riot Games, Inc. - Ex. 1026, p. 4
`
`Petitioner Valve - Ex. 1026, Page 4
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of David H. Crocker
`
`characteristics date back to the Internet’s inception. The Internet Standards
`
`Process was formally documented in the RFC series in March of 1992 as RFC
`
`1310. Ex. 1028 (RFC 1310). It was revised in March of 1994 as RFC 1602 and
`
`again in October of 1996 as RFC 2026. Ex. 1021 (RFC 1602); Ex. 1029 (RFC
`
`2026). The purpose of formally publishing the Internet Standards Process as an
`
`RFC was to keep the Internet technical community informed as to the current
`
`status of policies and procedures for work related to Internet standards.
`
`16.
`
`Internet Standards are typically developed through IETF working
`
`groups. IETF working groups are open to all who want to participate; anyone may
`
`observe and contribute to discussions. A majority of working group discussions
`
`are held via a mailing list for the group, to which anyone may subscribe. Some
`
`working group discussions are held in person and anyone may attend those
`
`meetings. The dates and locations for in-person meetings are announced via the
`
`working group’s mailing list, and more widely.
`
`17.
`
`In developing specifications, working groups generally seek to
`
`explore competing views and select among them based on technical superiority.
`
`Rather than formal voting, working group decisions are made through a “rough
`
`consensus” process, where the “strongly dominant” sense of the group is assessed.
`
`18. Some working group documents (e.g., draft specifications) are
`
`eventually published as RFCs. The process to publish a working group document
`
`5
`
`Petitioner Riot Games, Inc. - Ex. 1026, p. 5
`
`Petitioner Valve - Ex. 1026, Page 5
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of David H. Crocker
`
`as an approved standard and published as an RFC is initiated when the working
`
`group makes a recommendation to its cognizant Area Director. The Area Director
`
`then presents the recommendation to the IESG, which circulates the document to
`
`the wider IETF community, for comment, and then decides whether to publish the
`
`document as an RFC.
`
`C.
`
`Publication and Dissemination of RFCs
`
`19. The RFC Editor is the official source for RFCs on the Internet and is
`
`responsible for publishing RFCs. If the IESG approves a draft specification for
`
`publication as an RFC, the RFC is transferred to the RFC Editor for editorial
`
`refinement. After any necessary editorial work is completed, the RFC Editor
`
`publishes the specification for distribution on the Internet. It has been the IETF’s
`
`standard practice since at least the 1980s to publish RFCs as soon as possible
`
`following final approval for publication.
`
`20. The publication date of each RFC is typically on every page of the
`
`document, and the cover page of each RFC typically lists the title of the RFC, the
`
`RFC’s authors, and the working group through which the RFC was developed.
`
`21. The publication of RFCs is announced through a mailing list to which
`
`anyone may subscribe. The existence of the mailing list, and the process for
`
`signing up to receive mailing list announcements, has been well-known to
`
`members of the Internet technical community since the late 1980s. Anyone with
`
`6
`
`Petitioner Riot Games, Inc. - Ex. 1026, p. 6
`
`Petitioner Valve - Ex. 1026, Page 6
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of David H. Crocker
`
`an interest in Internet and Internet-connected technologies would have been able to
`
`locate this mailing list, subscribe, and then receive announcements of new RFCs.
`
`A similar mechanism existed within the earlier Internet research and development
`
`community.
`
`22. Published RFCs are widely distributed without any restrictions. All
`
`published RFCs are available publicly through “anonymous FTP” login and
`
`through the World Wide Web from a number of Internet hosts. The RFC Editor
`
`also maintains its own database of RFCs that is regularly updated with new RFCs.
`
`23. The RFC Editor periodically publishes an “Internet Official Protocol
`
`Standards” RFC, which summarizes the status of all Internet protocol and service
`
`specifications. These RFCs are made publicly available pursuant to the standard
`
`RFC publication process.
`
`24.
`
`In the 1990s, an official summary of published RFCs appeared in each
`
`issue of the Internet Society’s newsletter. The Internet Society’s newsletter was
`
`well-known to members of the Internet technical community as a source for an
`
`official summary of published RFCs.
`
`D. RFC Editor’s Official Repository
`
`25. Almost any published RFC can be retrieved from the RFC Editor’s
`
`website: https://www.rfc-editor.org. Specific RFCs can be retrieved directly from
`
`the RFC Editor’s website by entering a standard URL form that includes the host
`
`7
`
`Petitioner Riot Games, Inc. - Ex. 1026, p. 7
`
`Petitioner Valve - Ex. 1026, Page 7
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of David H. Crocker
`
`name “www.rfc-editor.org” followed by the file path “/rfc/rfc[NUMBER].txt,”
`
`where “[NUMBER]” is the specific RFC number to be retrieved. For example,
`
`RFC 1602 can be retrieved by entering the following URL: https://www.rfc-
`
`editor.org/rfc/rfc1602.txt.
`
`26. The RFC Editor’s site is well-known to persons in the Internet
`
`networking industry. Since the early 1990s, the RFC Editor repository has been
`
`freely accessible to the general public with no login, password, or membership
`
`requirement, and was similarly available to the Internet technical community since
`
`the 1970s. The RFC Editor’s website today is the authoritative source page for
`
`RFCs on the Internet.1
`
`27. Visitors to the RFC Editor’s website may search, browse, and
`
`download any RFC without restriction. The website’s search function allows
`
`visitors to search by numerous fields, including RFC number, title/keyword,
`
`publication date, area, and author surname. In addition to the RFC Editor, many
`
`publicly accessible sites maintain informal copies of the RFC archive, for example,
`
`http://rfc-archive.org and http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/.
`
`
`
`1 “Below are links to RFCs, as available from ietf.org and from rfc-editor.org.
`Note that there is a brief time period when the two sites will be out of sync. When
`in doubt, the RFC Editor site is the authoritative source page.”
`http://ietf.org/rfc.html (emphasis added).
`8
`
`Petitioner Riot Games, Inc. - Ex. 1026, p. 8
`
`Petitioner Valve - Ex. 1026, Page 8
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of David H. Crocker
`
`IV. Publication of Specific RFCs
`
`A. RFC 1692: Transport Multiplexing Protocol (TMux)
`
`28. Request for Comments 1692 (“RFC 1692”) is titled “Transport
`
`Multiplexing Protocol (TMux).” Ex. 1010 (RFC 1692). I authored RFC 1692
`
`along with Peter Cameron, Danny Cohen, and Jon Postel. RFC 1692 was
`
`developed through the Network Working Group and was published as a “Standards
`
`Track” RFC. I became involved with what would ultimately become RFC 1692
`
`after receiving a draft specification through the working group’s mailing list. I
`
`thought I could improve on the draft and subsequently drafted my own
`
`specification. I presented my draft specification at an in-person meeting of the
`
`working group. The “rough consensus” of the working group preferred the
`
`specification I drafted over the draft that had been previously circulated. After the
`
`meeting, additional discussion took place via the working group’s mailing list.
`
`Eventually, the working group reached a consensus and recommended to the Area
`
`Director that the specification be published as an RFC. The IESG considered the
`
`working group’s recommendation and ultimately approved the specification, which
`
`the RFC Editor assigned as RFC 1692.
`
`29. RFC 1692 was published in August of 1994 pursuant to the process
`
`described above, as indicated by the date on the top right corner of the document.
`
`9
`
`Petitioner Riot Games, Inc. - Ex. 1026, p. 9
`
`Petitioner Valve - Ex. 1026, Page 9
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of David H. Crocker
`
`Ex. 1010 (RFC 1692). As explained above, this is the date it was released for
`
`public distribution on the Internet.
`
`30. RFC 1692 has been available for anonymous FTP and web access
`
`from a number of Internet hosts since its publication date. Anyone involved with
`
`the Internet technical community during the 1993-1995 time period would have
`
`known where and how to obtain a copy of RFC 1692.
`
`31.
`
`In November 1994, pursuant to the Internet Standards Process in place
`
`at the time, the IAB published its quarterly “Internet Official Protocol Standards”
`
`as RFC 1720. RFC 1692 is listed within the section of RFC 1720 titled “New
`
`RFCs.” Ex. 1022 (RFC 1720).
`
`32. RFC 1692 has been maintained by the RFC Editor since its
`
`publication date, in accordance with the process described above. RFC 1692 is
`
`publicly available via the following URL: https://www.rfc-
`
`editor.org/rfc/rfc1692.txt. This is where one would expect to find RFC 1692 if it
`
`was published by the RFC Editor pursuant to standard publication process
`
`described above. I downloaded RFC 1692 from this URL and compared it to
`
`Exhibit 1010. They are the same document.
`
`B. RFC 791: Internet Protocol DARPA Internet Program Protocol
`Specification
`
`33. Request for Comments 791 (“RFC 791”) is titled “Internet Protocol
`
`DARPA Internet Program Protocol Specification.” Ex. 1011 (RFC 791). RFC 791
`10
`
`Petitioner Riot Games, Inc. - Ex. 1026, p. 10
`
`Petitioner Valve - Ex. 1026, Page 10
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of David H. Crocker
`
`was prepared for the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency by the
`
`Information Sciences Institute at the University of Southern California. Id.
`
`34. RFC 791 was published in September of 1981 through a process
`
`within the Internet research community that was a precursor to the process
`
`described above, as indicated by the date on the top right corner of the document.
`
`Ex. 1011 (RFC 791). As explained above, this is the date it was released for
`
`general distribution on the Internet.
`
`35. RFC 791 has been available for anonymous FTP from a number of
`
`Internet hosts since its publication date. Anyone involved with the Internet
`
`technical community during the 1993-1995 time period would have known where
`
`and how to obtain a copy of RFC 791.
`
`36. RFC 791 has been maintained by the RFC Editor since its publication
`
`date, in accordance with the process described above. RFC 791 is publicly
`
`available via the following URL: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc791.txt. This is
`
`where one would expect to find RFC 791 if it was published by the RFC Editor
`
`pursuant to standard publication process described above. I downloaded RFC 791
`
`from this URL and compared it to Exhibit 1011. They are the same document.
`
`37.
`
`I am personally familiar with RFC 791 based on my research and
`
`experience in the area of Internet systems, and I can confirm that it was widely
`
`publicly available during the 1993-1995 time period.
`
`11
`
`Petitioner Riot Games, Inc. - Ex. 1026, p. 11
`
`Petitioner Valve - Ex. 1026, Page 11
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of David H. Crocker
`
`C. RFC 1001: Protocol Standard for a NetBIOS Service on a
`TCP/UDP Transport: Concepts and Methods
`
`38. Request for Comments 1001 (“RFC 1001”) is titled “Protocol
`
`Standard for a NetBIOS Service on a TCP/UDP Transport: Concepts and
`
`Methods.” Ex. 1018 (RFC 1001). RFC 1001 was developed under the auspices of
`
`the Internet Activities Board, especially the End-to-End Services Task Force. Id. I
`
`participated in the development of RFC 1001.
`
`39. RFC 1001 was published in March of 1987 pursuant to the process
`
`described above, as indicated by the date on the top right corner of the document.
`
`Ex. 1018 (RFC 1001). As explained above, this is the date it was released for
`
`public distribution on the Internet.
`
`40. RFC 1001 has been available for anonymous FTP from a number of
`
`Internet hosts since its publication date. Anyone involved with the Internet
`
`technical community during the 1993-1995 time period would have known where
`
`and how to obtain a copy of RFC 1001. I am personally familiar with RFC 1001
`
`based on my research and experience in the area of Internet systems, and I can
`
`confirm that it was widely publicly available during the 1993-1995 time period.
`
`41. RFC 1001 has been maintained by the RFC Editor since its
`
`publication date, in accordance with the process described above. RFC 1001 is
`
`publicly available via the following URL: https://www.rfc-
`
`editor.org/rfc/rfc1001.txt. This is where one would expect to find RFC 1001 if it
`12
`
`Petitioner Riot Games, Inc. - Ex. 1026, p. 12
`
`Petitioner Valve - Ex. 1026, Page 12
`
`
`
`Declaration of David H. Crocker
`
`was published by the RFC Editor pursuant to standard publication process
`
`described above. I downloaded RFC 1001 from this URL and compared it to
`
`Exhibit 1018. They are the same document.
`
`D.
`
`RFC 1459: Internet Relay Chat Protocol
`
`42. Request for Comments 1459 (“RFC 1459”) is titled “Internet Relay
`
`Chat Protocol.” Ex. 1025 (RFC 1459). RFC 1459 was authored by Jarkko
`
`Oikarinen and Darren Reed. Id.
`
`43. RFC 1459 was published in May of 1993 pursuant to the process
`
`described above, as indicated by the date on the top right corner of the document.
`
`Ex. 1025 (RFC 1459). As explained above, this is the date it was released for
`
`public distribution on the Internet.
`
`44. RFC 1459 has been available for anonymous FTP from a number of
`
`Internet hosts since its publication date. Anyone involved with the Internet
`
`technical community during the 1993-1995 time period would have known where
`
`and how to obtain a copy of RFC 1459. I am personally familiar with RFC 1459
`
`based on my research and experience in the area of Internet systems, and I can
`
`confirm that it was widely publicly available during the 1993-1995 time period.
`
`45. RFC 1459 has been maintained by the RFC Editor since its
`
`publication date, in accordance with the process described above. RFC 1459 is
`
`13
`
`Petitioner Riot Games, Inc. - Ex. 1026, p. 13
`
`Petitioner Valve - Ex. 1026, Page 13
`
`
`
`Declaration of David H. Crocker
`
`publicly available via the following URL: https://www.rfc-
`
`editorora/rfc/rfcl459.txt. This is where one would expect to find RFC 1459 if it
`
`was published by the RFC Editor pursuant to standard publication process
`
`described above.
`
`I downloaded RFC 1459 from this URL and compared it to
`
`Exhibit 1025. They are the same document.
`
`3!!
`
`Bl:
`
`3!:
`
`46.
`
`1 do hereby declare and state, that all statements made herein of my
`
`Own knowledge are true and that all statements made on information and belief are
`
`believed to be true; and further that these statements were made with the
`
`knowledge that willful false statements and the like so made are punishable by fine
`
`or imprisonment, under Section lOOl ol'Title 18 of the United States Code.
`
`Dated: October 18, 2017
`
`By:
`Printed Name: David H. Crocker
`
`\rL (at)?X/fl/lfléizfl'
`
`l4
`
`Petitioner Valve - Ex. 1026, Page 14
`
`Petitioner Riot Games, Inc. - Ex. 1026, p. 14
`
`Petitioner Riot Games, Inc. - Ex. 1026, p. 14
`
`Petitioner Valve - Ex. 1026, Page 14
`
`