Re: Normatively referenced specifications

"Dale Mohlenhoff (dmohlenh)" <dmohlenh@cisco.com> Wed, 18 December 2013 16:32 UTC

Return-Path: <dmohlenh@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: ipr-wg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipr-wg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC65A1ADF84 for <ipr-wg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Dec 2013 08:32:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.039
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.039 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.538, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 83Fam47YnA-8 for <ipr-wg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Dec 2013 08:32:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from alln-iport-3.cisco.com (alln-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.142.90]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0DCD1ADEBA for <ipr-wg@ietf.org>; Wed, 18 Dec 2013 08:32:50 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=4155; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1387384369; x=1388593969; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=pmt/MQD0sECDbow4S+uMstGZ7KZyQpEhpe9twWIrNjY=; b=gEQtCWRrChAc2NkWujbrPOVzHJg/3IXHSSqgA3t7GbHDZzE/CYSKYd+F CyhUjGWCx9NEzUllHXcYEDXH7mMHn8x17+82qXAkC4APpAyO6uiGijeAp VaXH3IDRtRa4At03VR4aC2eZA/G+Q8YnVJnD4jStXQvtpERb3EeVZTTSU I=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhgFAL3NsVKtJXG//2dsb2JhbABWA4JpIThVuG6BGxZ0giUBAQEEAQEBNzQLEAIBCBgeECcLJQIEDgWIBAEMyjcTBI8CEAcRhCUEmBaSFIMrgio
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.95,508,1384300800"; d="scan'208";a="7665350"
Received: from rcdn-core2-4.cisco.com ([173.37.113.191]) by alln-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 18 Dec 2013 16:32:49 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x02.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x02.cisco.com [173.36.12.76]) by rcdn-core2-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id rBIGWnbs028819 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 18 Dec 2013 16:32:49 GMT
Received: from xmb-aln-x01.cisco.com ([fe80::747b:83e1:9755:d453]) by xhc-aln-x02.cisco.com ([173.36.12.76]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Wed, 18 Dec 2013 10:32:48 -0600
From: "Dale Mohlenhoff (dmohlenh)" <dmohlenh@cisco.com>
To: SM <sm@resistor.net>, "Black, David" <david.black@emc.com>
Subject: Re: Normatively referenced specifications
Thread-Topic: Normatively referenced specifications
Thread-Index: AQHO+wYxlYjlcMiEV0WCDjCwJ+GX4JpZci0AgAAxHiCAAGKzgA==
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2013 16:32:48 +0000
Message-ID: <CED70C71.119D0%dmohlenh@cisco.com>
References: <CED46C85.AC4EC%stewe@stewe.org> <6.2.5.6.2.20131217001052.0c5bff98@resistor.net> <8D3D17ACE214DC429325B2B98F3AE712026ECD3A9B@MX15A.corp.emc.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20131218001051.0c266ed0@resistor.net>
In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20131218001051.0c266ed0@resistor.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.9.131030
x-originating-ip: [10.21.71.98]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <C51215E432408649B14E23FFEB654E49@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "ipr-wg@ietf.org" <ipr-wg@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ipr-wg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IPR-WG <ipr-wg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipr-wg>, <mailto:ipr-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipr-wg/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipr-wg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipr-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg>, <mailto:ipr-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2013 16:32:52 -0000

Hi,

I agree with the comments made below.  I think it creates many concerns
when an IETF standard is incorporated into another standard and IETF's IPR
declarations are expected to be applied.  Different organizations have
different IPR policies and IETF should not expect to rely on other
organizations IPR declarations if it were to incorporate another standard
into its standards.  Likewise, other organizations should not necessarily
be able to rely on IETF declarations if they incorporate an IETF standard.
 In some cases this may be satisfactory, but not in every case.
Therefore, the policy should be for the appropriate declarations to be
made in the standards organization that has incorporated other standards.

Regards,
Dale
    
 
Dale G. Mohlenhoff 
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Senior Corporate Counsel                                           170
West Tasman Drive
                   
                   San Jose, CA  95134-1706
dmohlenh@cisco.com
Direct:     +1.408.525.9589
Mobile:   +1.509.991.6003
 
This e-mail may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole
use of the intended recipient.  Any review, use, distribution or
disclosure by others is strictly prohibited.  If you are not the intended
recipient (or authorized to receive for the recipient), please contact the
sender by reply e-mail and delete all copies of this message.






On 12/18/13 12:39 AM, "SM" <sm@resistor.net> wrote:

>Hi David,
>At 15:43 17-12-2013, Black, David wrote:
>>I'm concerned - at an abstract level, this question appears to be
>>headed towards applying the IETF's IPR policy to standards developed
>>by other standards organizations by virtue of IETF documents
>>containing normative references to such standards.
>
>Yes.
>
>>I suspect that the IETF could be rather uncomfortable being on the
>>receiving end of another standards organization doing that to
>>our standards (applying their IPR policy to IETF standards courtesy
>>of normative references in their standards).  I might suggest that
>>a useful criterion for application of IETF's IPR policy to a standard
>>developed by another organization could be (re)publication of that
>>document as an IETF standard (to which the IETF IPR policy would
>>then be clearly applicable).  There are situations in which the
>>same standard is published by IETF and another standards organization.
>
>The republication might cause other problems as you then have two
>specifications.  There may be a divergence between the two
>specifications in the far future.  As mentioned above the IETF might
>be uncomfortable if it was at the receiving end.
>
>>I will also observe that as a participant in multiple standards
>>organizations across which normative references and collaborative
>>standards development activity occurs, one IPR policy per organization
>>is quite enough to deal with ... really ;-).
>
>:-)
>
>>OTOH, I do think that there is a problem in what you observed:
>>
>> > For what it is worth, I reviewed
>> > a draft from a working group in the RAI area
>> > recently.  The draft was written to address an
>> > interoperability problem affecting a
>> > technology.  The specification for that
>> > technology was not referenced.
>>
>>If I were reviewing that draft (e.g., as a Gen-ART reviewer), I would
>>have raised a major issue about the missing normative reference, as it
>>is clearly not possible to implement the improved interoperability
>>behavior for that technology without implementing the technology itself.
>>
>>That reference, and especially the citation of the entity that developed
>>the reference, ought to provide implementers who care with enough
>>direction to start to run down the relevant IPR considerations.
>
>I would list the issue as minor in an area-specific review if I need
>to read the referenced document to understand the draft being
>reviewed.  I agree with what is written above.
>
>Regards,
>-sm 
>
>_______________________________________________
>Ipr-wg mailing list
>Ipr-wg@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg