Re: Normatively referenced specifications

SM <sm@resistor.net> Thu, 19 December 2013 06:39 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@resistor.net>
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 464A71AE0B0 for <ipr-wg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Dec 2013 22:39:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.79
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.79 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=no
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 1I6G1bMql-Ca for <ipr-wg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Dec 2013 22:39:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 739881AE084 for <ipr-wg@ietf.org>; Wed, 18 Dec 2013 22:39:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from SUBMAN.resistor.net (IDENT:sm@localhost [127.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id rBJ6d8lC021479 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 18 Dec 2013 22:39:13 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1387435158; bh=wkPOZ2pw+t3DwliT+TPnJErlqJbg3CFeCijInytnJf0=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=UV4M5GNRIFBc91ZhQ5I/T1HkxcLFh4sj0AyHWAYBpXbZOY+ti9dZUIxtfrcFcJTA5 vIMg+xnL2P2D9K2+akvnLtBm7RIl00TsBxCbh8BK/GNIObV46iC/1624gya879pCLy +hwWVVzd2CogSF6ZRpI4WrnLw44SsYhlbo52siLs=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1387435158; i=@resistor.net; bh=wkPOZ2pw+t3DwliT+TPnJErlqJbg3CFeCijInytnJf0=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=1DDcDKj/YTPGDuYczsyzkxFdzJ8jCWa5rndhZl4NFmXlVReHdF/0waRU7uduBhmrs 7OwBesKDPmLBYQIesFRKLaQuhluEJGtj0AXlrmc2rUOk5A7MB24gNvp2PfeFaPLt2B KzM8aowcf7s29sn9QYa7H2UAfWBS2xLDhJSON2OE=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20131218220600.0c3f9210@resistor.net>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2013 22:24:48 -0800
To: "Dale Mohlenhoff (dmohlenh)" <dmohlenh@cisco.com>
From: SM <sm@resistor.net>
Subject: Re: Normatively referenced specifications
In-Reply-To: <CED72CDA.11A3B%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> <CED70C71.119D0%dmohlenh@cisco.com> <52B1CF27.3010905@joelhalpern.com> <52B1DE0C.8010201@dcrocker.net> <36BAA6A693139D4BBCB37CCCA660E08A02B87FCC@eusaamb101.ericsson.se> <52B1E830.30001@dcrocker.net> <36BAA6A693139D4BBCB37CCCA660E08A02B88190@eusaamb101.ericsson.se> <993E6E5E6EA5F13E50293C74@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <CED72CDA.11A3B%dmohlenh@cisco.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Cc: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>, dcrocker@bbiw.net, 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: Thu, 19 Dec 2013 06:39:29 -0000

Hi Dale,
At 10:46 18-12-2013, Dale Mohlenhoff (dmohlenh) wrote:
>I agree John.  However, this is an area that has caused some issues to
>arise already and I think will continue to do so.  This is not just an
>IETF issue, however, would it make sense to consider language to address
>this issue or just state that a declarant must put these constraints in
>their declaration.  I am thinking out loud here, but I understand your
>point that the current IETF IPR Policy does not address this.

There are several angles to the discussion.  The result of addressing 
all the angles  might be a set of complex rules.  The average 
participant will not understand those rules.  There will be 
disagreement about what the rules mean or the rules will be ignored.

Regards,
-sm