Re: [rtcweb] Counting NOs (Re: Straw Poll on Nokia mincing)

[Stephan Wenger <[e-mail]>]

Ron,

On 12/20/13, 1:39 PM, "Ron" <[e-mail]> wrote:

>[Š]
>And it would also seem to be subject to the IETF requirement that security
>technologies MUST be strictly RF.

There is no such requirement.  The only requirement that I recall related
to security technologies is that, whenever security is mandated, that
there MUST be at least one RF security technology be mandated.  Optional
other security technologies can be royalty bearing or otherwise encumbered.

Also please note that security is the one single exception we currently
have in the IETF where there exists an actual licensing requirement.  I
would argue very strongly against creating another such precedence.

>Which leaves the door open that the IETF
>_could_ always assume change control of it if the need ever arose.  Which
>seems reasonably pragmatic, even absent the "mandatory unless" language,
>and the IETF does make sensible exceptions for strictly RF technologies.
>
>We don't appear to have that option in the case of H.264 though, in the
>light of declarations and statements that insist there would never be a
>licence granted for an alternative but similar technology, by at least
>one major IPR holder.
>
>
>I know we're edging out of the scope of things that this group is
>chartered
>to decide on, but I don't see any document that explicitly gives us the
>option to ignore these requirements either, and it does seem relevant to
>the decision that we need to make.
>
>Even after we decide on something (assuming that we do), it's still going
>to need to run the gauntlet of the broader IETF, and we seem to be
>somewhat
>perilously close to a loophole whereby I could reference something which
>I hold IPR on, that was published in the newsletter of my mother's
>knitting
>group, and then assert with a Straight Face, that I have no obligation to
>disclose, since it was Published Elsewhere.  And point to the discussion
>here as precedent for that.
>
>
>The IETF requirements as published would seem to be very clear.  Where
>does
>our leeway come from to blur those lines here?
>
>  Cheers,
>  Ron
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>rtcweb mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb