Normatively referenced specifications

SM <sm@resistor.net> Tue, 17 December 2013 08:58 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 39D311ADF68 for <ipr-wg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Dec 2013 00:58:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1] autolearn=ham
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 bHlvGx9WBkfv for <ipr-wg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Dec 2013 00:58:41 -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 9B8AA1AD79D for <ipr-wg@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Dec 2013 00:58:41 -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 rBH8wXi2005280 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 17 Dec 2013 00:58:38 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1387270720; bh=szCBY7eFfivYWGAt6Pbi3zMnr1jGSKr1T8S38UHMp9o=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=wa3vjaTgsptzLJtaXMcWiMgWfqBktV7OXHp2ThHkgXgF5a302blLhtNgNJ4wQmhuC gvm3IaahuroXl42V9q3BOsKNvQVqGaQYCXbty9OzkuA7opMe/9JZctOUhsDdV8NmHk HXUHyLISJJrQBTUX4Pl3fOBc3DWIn4MfTSwhIpKo=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1387270720; i=@resistor.net; bh=szCBY7eFfivYWGAt6Pbi3zMnr1jGSKr1T8S38UHMp9o=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=TQG0THnIqR4a/9U0ev0SsQ6BV1paqziDQNd9TTqpZ39XtdTbPEjs6/WPBuUxMTV+d ocgh/SXpL09X55UEVSeXD80Rn04cwrS+CN2gXxobllE5iMmy/UAmIWLxQ3UCtmuSnb z6VdTIYldiDF63GxQ/e526PAvTILyztXR8KXimT0=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20131217001052.0c5bff98@resistor.net>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2013 00:58:28 -0800
To: ipr-wg@ietf.org
From: SM <sm@resistor.net>
Subject: Normatively referenced specifications
In-Reply-To: <CED46C85.AC4EC%stewe@stewe.org>
References: <CED46C85.AC4EC%stewe@stewe.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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: Tue, 17 Dec 2013 08:58:43 -0000

Hello,
At 21:11 16-12-2013, Stephan Wenger wrote:
>(1) None of the IETF policy documents contain an explicit requirement for
>disclosure against normatively referenced specs.
>(2) At least in the area of IPR encumbered media codec specs being
>normatively referenced by IETF documents (mandatory or optional), there is
>no history of IPR disclosures.  The majority of IETF documents that
>normatively reference media coding specs are RTP payload formats--an area
>I¹m very familiar with.  There is not a single IPR disclosure against the
>media codec technology itself that I¹m aware of in any disclosures related
>to payload formats.  That is despite the fact that the majority of payload

I am quoting part of a message from Stephan 
Wenger to ask about the interpretation regarding 
IPR disclosures about normatively referenced 
specifications.  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.  I didn't read 
other RFCs from RAI to see whether that was the practice in the area.

One of the basic principles regarding claims about IPR is as follows:

   "in order for the working group and the rest of the IETF to have
    the information needed to make an informed decision about the use
    of a particular technology, all those contributing to the working
    group's discussions must disclose the existence of any IPR the
    Contributor or other IETF participant believes Covers or may
    ultimately Cover the technology under discussion."

The above is subject to interpretation when it 
comes to normatively referenced specifications.

draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-06 defines the term 
"Implementing Technology".  If, for example, an 
implementation supports the XML format and XML is 
covered by IPR, the implementation would have to 
go through the licensing exercise.  From a 
standardization perspective, would an IPR 
disclosure be expected if the claim relates to a 
normatively referenced specification?

Regards,
-sm