Re: Normatively referenced specifications

["Dale Mohlenhoff (dmohlenh)" <[e-mail]>]

Agreed and from my standpoint the second point is a critical one given
some of the things going on in other standards organizations.
    
 
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 10:29 AM, "Michael Cameron" <[e-mail]>
wrote:

>We are discussing 2 different things--one thread of this conversation is
>what disclosure is required (your e-mail below), the other thread is what
>IPR Policy applies to a submission having a normative reference (my
>referenced e-mail).
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Dave Crocker [mailto:[e-mail]]
>Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2013 10:24 AM
>To: Michael Cameron; [e-mail]
>Subject: Re: Normatively referenced specifications
>
>On 12/18/2013 10:09 AM, Michael Cameron wrote:
>> But Dave may be right when the IPR is owned by one entity
>
>
>This is the sort of attempt at nuance that is impractical and, by my
>reading, does not apply to the IETF's disclosure requirement:
>
>RFC 3979:
>
>    6.6.  When is a Disclosure Required?
>
>    IPR disclosures under Sections 6.1.1. and 6.1.2 are required with
>    respect to IPR that is owned directly or indirectly, by the
>    individual or his/her employer or sponsor (if any) or that such
>    persons otherwise have the right to license or assert.
>
>This language does not care about whether the resulting specification
>text is by reference or direct exposition.  It does not care whether the
>content is standardized elsewhere.  It does not care how the information
>is packaged or how the resulting use of the information is packaged.
>
>What it cares about is the knowledge and 'interest' of the contributor,
>during their participation in IETF discussions.
>
>The rule is nicely simple and without nuance.  Let's not try to invent
>nuanced interpretation of it.
>
>d/
>--
>Dave Crocker
>Brandenburg InternetWorking
>bbiw.net
>_______________________________________________
>Ipr-wg mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg