RE: Normatively referenced specifications

["Lawrence Rosen" <[e-mail]>]

Dale Mohlenhoff wrote:
> I also agree with you that if the IETF specification is modified 
> in any way when incorporated into another specification, 
> then the IETF declarations do not apply.

Where in the IETF rules does it say that conformity to the spec is a legal
requirement in order to implement it? How do you reconcile that with the
open source rule that says that any FOSS software can be modified without
asking additional permissions? 

I know that a patent grant may or may not apply to modified works, but
Dale's statement seems to make that an absolute in every circumstance, and
makes conformity a prerequisite for implementation. Is conformity to the
spec now the most important IETF goal, surpassing FOSS licensing freedom?

/Larry

Lawrence Rosen
Rosenlaw & Einschlag, a technology law firm (www.rosenlaw.com)
3001 King Ranch Rd., Ukiah, CA 95482
Office: 707-485-1242
Linkedin profile: http://linkd.in/XXpHyu 


-----Original Message-----
From: Dale Mohlenhoff (dmohlenh) [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2013 8:45 AM
To: Joel M. Halpern; SM; Black, David
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Normatively referenced specifications

Hi Joel,

I agree and I obviously did not make my point clearly.  I agree with you
that IETF IPR declarations only apply to IETF specifications.  Further, the
declarations apply to IETF IPR specifications that are implemented in
conjunction with other specifications, however, the declarations will only
apply to the IETF specification and not to the other specifications.   I
also agree with you that if the IETF specification is modified in any way
when incorporated into another specification, then the IETF declarations do
not apply.  Sorry that I did not make this clear in my previous email.

Regards,
Dale
    
 
Dale G. Mohlenhoff
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Senior Corporate Counsel                                           170
West Tasman Drive
                   
                   San Jose, CA  95134-1706 [e-mail]
Direct:     +1.408.525.9589
Mobile:   [phone]
 
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 8:36 AM, "Joel M. Halpern" <[e-mail]> wrote:

>Dale, your interpretation is exactly the opposite of what I thought 
>Dave was saying.
>Referencing a spec normally does not and ought not mean that the 
>referencers IPR rules apply to the referenced specification.  They 
>can't, since in the abstract the referencer has no control over the IPR 
>grants of the referenced document.
>
>And IETF IPR grants apply when implementing IETF RFCs, even when those 
>RFCs are implemented in conjunction with some other specification.  The 
>IPR grants don't apply (as I understand it all bets are off) if you 
>modify the spec.
>
>Equally, the IETF can not insist that our IPR rules apply to a spec we 
>reference.
>
>Yours,
>Joel
>
>On 12/18/13 11:32 AM, Dale Mohlenhoff (dmohlenh) wrote:
>> 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 [e-mail]
>> Direct:     +1.408.525.9589
>> Mobile:   [phone]
>>
>> 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" <[e-mail]> 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
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ipr-wg mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg
>>

_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg