Re: Normatively referenced specifications

["Joel M. Halpern" <[e-mail]>]

Now I see what you (and John) are getting at.  I am not sure exactly 
what our rules say, and this is likely an area that can be gamed.  But 
since our rules are that you have to disclose what is needed to 
implement the specification, it would seem reasonable (but really needs 
a lawyer, which Dale is and I am not) that this would apply to many 
normative references.  A normative reference that is needed to 
understand the spec but not to implement it might be an even more 
nuanced case.

And the disclosure rule in question is only incumbent upon someone 
participating in that work in the IETF.
A normative reference to a document in an IETF RFC or I-D does not mean 
that some non-participant in that work in the IETF who has IPR on that 
document needs to disclose the IPR.

Yours,
Joel

On 12/18/13 1:26 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
> On 12/18/2013 10:18 AM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
>> THe part that is relevant to this discussion are the IPR licensing terms
>> stated by folks in conjunction with our policy.
>> And yes, they can make broader grants about other specifications when
>> they provide those licenses, but from an IETF perspective what folks
>> look at, and what we are discussing, is the licensing terms for use in
>> the specification.
>
>
> Whereas I read the challenging part of this discussion as having to do
> with requirements for disclosure.  Certainly the assertions in the
> thread that gave me pause were ones that claimed clever, nuanced
> interpretations of our rules in order to avoid disclosure.
>
> Once IPR is disclosed, how the IETF chooses to deal with that
> information might indeed get complicated, nuanced or whatever.
>
> d/