Re: Normatively referenced specifications

[John C Klensin <[e-mail]>]

--On Wednesday, December 18, 2013 09:40 -0800 Dave Crocker
<[e-mail]> wrote:

>> Absent a clear and compelling presentation from legal
>> experts, common sense needs to prevail in the IETF's
>> interpretation of its rules.
>> 
>> Our rule is quite simple:  participation obligates disclosure.
> 
> 
> Here's a simple example:
> 
>    Assume I own a patent on a component technology that has
> been published somewhere other than the IETF.  The
> organization publishing that specification did not require me
> to divulge my intellectual property claims.
> 
>    I now participate in an important IETF effort that
> considers including the component technology, by citing it
> normatively.  I of course, work vigorously to get the IETF to
> adopt the technology, but no one know that I stand to make
> serious money if the technology is included.
> 
> Given the intent behind the IETF's IPR rules, it makes no
> sense to allow me to participate without divulging my IPR
> interest in the topic.

I have to agree with Dave, but let me add something from a
slightly different perspective.  It seems to me that, with
regard to non-copyright IPR, the IETF rules focus on disclosure
of the interests of participants and encumbrances that might
occur as the result of those interests.  They do not focus on
who gets to use what and in what contexts, conforming or not
(again, excepting copyright issues).   Those topics might be
picked up by the disclosures themselves, but are no involved in
what is required to be disclosed and by whom. So, yes, if I'm
participating in a WG and the WG is considering requiring (or
even strongly recommending or identifying as an alternative)
something that I know is encumbered, then I'm obligated to
disclose.  It should make no difference in that regard whether
the specification in question is incorporated by explicit text,
by reference, or in some other way if the WG could find one.

Disclaimer: IANAL and the above is intended to be a restatement
and interpretation of the IETF's intent (which I believe to be
clear in this case) and not a legal interpretation of anything.

    john