Re: [rtcweb] Allegations of misconduct (was: Re: H.264 IPR disclosures (or persistent lack thereof))

[Dave Crocker <[e-mail]>]

On 12/17/2013 12:57 AM, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
> Here's an area where we are known to disagree. I think that a
> contribution that says technology X MUST be used by technology Y should
> trigger a disclosure obligation on technology X for anyone who
> contributes to the discussion on whether or not to adopt that statement,
> as long as that information may contribute to letting the WG make an
> informed decision.


Normative language in a specification defines the syntax and semantics 
of the thing being specified.

It does not make much sense to handle IPR differently for normative text 
that includes details by reference (citation) rather than by inline 
explication.  In terms of the syntax and semantics, the specification is 
an integrated whole.

If there is an legal distinction between inline normative reference, 
versus citation-based inclusion, which is relevant to the interpretation 
of IETF IPR rules, then some lawyers should provide the community with 
expert opinions on the matter.

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.


d/
-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net