RE: Normatively referenced specifications

["Black, David" <[e-mail]>]

> draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-06 defines the term
> "Implementing Technology".  If, for example, an
> implementation supports the XML format and XML is
> covered by IPR, the implementation would have to
> go through the licensing exercise.  From a
> standardization perspective, would an IPR
> disclosure be expected if the claim relates to a
> normatively referenced specification?

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.

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.

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.

Thanks,
--David

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ipr-wg [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of SM
> Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2013 3:58 AM
> To: [e-mail]
> Subject: Normatively referenced specifications
> 
> Hello,
> At 21:11 16-12-2013, Stephan Wenger wrote:
> >(1) None of the IETF policy documents contain an explicit requirement for
> >disclosure against normatively referenced specs.
> >(2) At least in the area of IPR encumbered media codec specs being
> >normatively referenced by IETF documents (mandatory or optional), there is
> >no history of IPR disclosures.  The majority of IETF documents that
> >normatively reference media coding specs are RTP payload formats--an area
> >I¹m very familiar with.  There is not a single IPR disclosure against the
> >media codec technology itself that I¹m aware of in any disclosures related
> >to payload formats.  That is despite the fact that the majority of payload
> 
> I am quoting part of a message from Stephan
> Wenger to ask about the interpretation regarding
> IPR disclosures about normatively referenced
> specifications.  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.  I didn't read
> other RFCs from RAI to see whether that was the practice in the area.
> 
> One of the basic principles regarding claims about IPR is as follows:
> 
>    "in order for the 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 other IETF participant believes Covers or may
>     ultimately Cover the technology under discussion."
> 
> The above is subject to interpretation when it
> comes to normatively referenced specifications.
> 
> draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-06 defines the term
> "Implementing Technology".  If, for example, an
> implementation supports the XML format and XML is
> covered by IPR, the implementation would have to
> go through the licensing exercise.  From a
> standardization perspective, would an IPR
> disclosure be expected if the claim relates to a
> normatively referenced specification?
> 
> Regards,
> -sm
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ipr-wg mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg