Subject: ADMIN: #1198 is closed (Re: #1167 Excerpt labelling)

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 09 May 2006 10:10:03 +0200

>
>
>"Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]> writes:
>> >
>  
>
>>>>> >>>> I like this, but doesn't it seem incompatible with a document that
>>>>> >>>> invoke section 5.2 of RFC 3978?
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>>    If the Contributor desires to eliminate the IETF's right to make
>>>>> >>>>    modifications and derivative works of an IETF Contribution (other
>>>>> >>>>    than translations), one of the two of the following notices may be
>>>>> >>>>    included in the Status of Memo section of an Internet-Draft and
>>>>> >>>>    included in a published RFC:
>>>>> >>>> ...
>>>>> >>>>    b. "This document may not be modified, and derivative works of it
>>>>> >>>> may
>>>>> >>>>       not be created."
>>>>        
>>>>
>
>Which prevents the IETF or anyone from implementing this protocol as well.
>Was that the intent? Without the derivative works licenseing, the ports
>cannot be documented.
>  
>

Todd,
I have to remind you that your issue #1198 was closed with the resolution:

> Implementations of IETF standards that incorporate pieces of IETF
> documents (such as MIBs or data tables) need to have the right to
> produce derivative works based on those pieces.
>
> Implementations of IETF standards that do not incorporate such pieces do
> not need the right to produce such derivative works.

Do not attempt to reopen that issue.

_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 09:01:37 -0700

Harald - I wasnt re-kicking a dead horse,  but as long as you used the magic
words, let me ask you, what does the phrase "Implementation of  IETF
standards" mean? - these are special words - so lets be real clear in a
legal sense what you mean by this phrase...

For instance does it mean that someone may want to copy the text of the
IETF's Document and Impramatur for their own document; or does it mean that
they want to usae the core IP in the publication to 'create a system in the
real-world based on the design specified in the IETF Standard'? or does it
mean something else?

I ask this becuase your commentary brings to mind that what the IETF
actually is doing is building a set of interoperable protocol models for
specific tasks or ranges of tasks. What it has to sell is the use of its
protocol-interoperability mechanisms and that's about all since the IETF
itself doesnt own the protocols it vets per se... The point of this question
is simply in asaking you what, if someone is going to say that their
protocol is IETF compliant what, do they need from the IETF to say that?

1)    Do they need the rights to implement that protocol? i.e. the rights
from whoever to actually build the protocol stack or module

2)    Do they need the rights to use the IETF's Trandmark with regard to the
Complaince Statement or Derivative Of Statement's in its documentation?

3)    Does the IETF claim any rights to the implemented protocols from its
vetted designs?

4)    Does the IETF have any fundamental claim or responsibility for the
maintanence of the IP they codify as IETF Standards?

This is an important set of questions since it clearly defines what rights
and licensing you will have to propagate through from one side of the
process to the other.

T.

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 10:56:37 -0700

Harald - let me pose a what if scenario

What if someone took a IETF protocol standard for something, and implemented
that protocol functionality in their own code model and then ran the IETF's
qualification process between this third-party stack and the IETF's
Standard's Protocol's for that Protocol-Initiative. This would qualify that
protocol as interoperable with that IETF protocol - so can this new instance
then where the IETF's Approved Badge? and if not why?

The question is what rights does the IETF have here and what rights does it
need here. It seems to me that the use of the test plan may be the most
valuable thing the IETF has to offer as a product by the way since without
the approved test plan that WG would not allow the advancement of any
protocols (which also may be an issue too but that is another story.).

Does any of this make sense to you?

Todd Glassey

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
To: "Harald Alvestrand" <[email-masked]>; "todd glassey"
<[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>; "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2006 9:01 AM
Subject: Re: ADMIN: #1198 is closed (Re: #1167 Excerpt labeling)

> Harald - I wasn't re-kicking a dead horse,  but as long as you used the
magic
> IETF's Document and Imprimatur for their own document; or does it mean
that
> they want to use the core IP in the publication to 'create a system in the
> I ask this because your commentary brings to mind that what the IETF
> itself doesn't own the protocols it vets per se... The point of this
question
> is simply in asking you what, if someone is going to say that their
> 2)    Do they need the rights to use the IETF's Trademark with regard to
the
> Compliance Statement or Derivative Of Statement's in its documentation?
>
> maintenance of the IP they codify as IETF Standards?
>
> Subject: ADMIN: #1198 is closed (Re: #1167 Excerpt labeling)
>
>
> > >
> > >
> > >>>>> >>>>    If the Contributor desires to eliminate the IETF's right
to
> make
> > >>>>> >>>>    than translations), one of the two of the following
notices
> may be
> > >>>>> >>>>    included in the Status of Memo section of an
Internet-Draft
> and
> > >>>>> >>>>    b. "This document may not be modified, and derivative
works
> of it
> > >Was that the intent? Without the derivative works licensing, the ports
> > >cannot be documented.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Todd,

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 10:58:03 -0700

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
To: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>; "Harald Alvestrand"
<[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>; "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2006 10:56 AM
Subject: What if... - question about how this is supposed to work - Re:
ADMIN: #1198 is closed (Re: #1167 Excerpt labeling)

> then where the IETF's Approved Badge? and if not why?

err 'ware' - SIC - sorry
> > > >>>>> >>>> I like this, but doesn't it seem incompatible with a
document
> > > >>>>> >>>>    modifications and derivative works of an IETF
Contribution
> > (other
> > > > Implementations of IETF standards that do not incorporate such
pieces
> do

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 09 May 2006 18:45:39 -0400

As far as I can tell, these questions treat as facts some assumptions 
which I consider not to be the case at all.
I do not know of an "IETF's qualification process" or "IETF's 
Standard's Protocol's" or "IETF's Approved Badge".  As far as I know, 
we have never tried to create any of those things.  Therefore, a 
question about how someone interacts with those things does not seem 
meaningful.

Yours,
Joel M. Halpern

At 01:56 PM 5/9/2006, todd glassey wrote:
>Todd Glass

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 07:58:32 -0700

Joel -
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
To: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2006 3:45 PM
Subject: Re: What if...hypothetical

> which I consider not to be the case at all.

Like what?

> Standard's Protocol's"

Well I am not surprised but there is hope still -

what I proposed was a what-if regarding the implementation of a protocol
product from an IETF design, and one that occurs outside of the IETF's
process. In doing so, what I asked was a totally legitimate question being
as to whether that product could wear the IETF's moniker in its title if it
met the same Interoperability Standards that the test cases did in the
standards process.

For instance, could it say "RFCxxxx Compliant" in its subtitle or branding
for instance? And if not why? It seems to me that it since the term "Request
for Comments" is a public title of a document in a standards process,
somewhat like the term Xerox can universally be applied to photocopying a
document, that there may be an issue controlling use of the term RFCxxxx in
any case since those documents are generic to any number of Standards
Processes and SDO's. For instance how then is the IETF's RFCxxxx any
different than any other SDO's RFC document except that the IETF uses the
title as a lie since there is no formal method of commenting or using those
comments from external sources. Maybe we should change this sham title to
"HAT" - for "How About This" - we would have HATxxxx documents and those
since the term HAT is not generic to any number of disciplines and their
publishing processes there might be some hope of controlling that.

Otherwise the controlling of the referencing of the term's RFCxxxx Compliant
is something the IETF may have trouble with.

And, gee as long as we are hamming the use of the term RFC in text, if for
instance the term "IETF" is used in the title - the question becomes one of
whether its a TM or whether its an abbreviation representing the public name
of a standards body, and whether that means anything.

For instance, no trade mark that was identical to the name of the agency
itself could prevent me from referring to that agency by name, like "the
coca cola company" for instance is a Trademark but its also the public name
of the entity and so any communications regarding the entity must also
include that trade marked text without regard to the trademark one would
think... So how is this different for standards? How would the IETF actually
control anything?

Further, what I want to know is how the IETF's licensing models could
prevent someone from saying "Compliant to the protocol design specified as
IETF RFCxxxx"  - because I dont think they can in that sense, which makes
much of this argument about promulgating rights through to the end-users
somewhat more complex. What is it again that the IETF is trying to protect?
Its derivative documents or the IP they contain when you exclude the IETF's
templates?

> or "IETF's Approved Badge".  As far as I know,
> we have never tried to create any of those things.

Right Joel - wake up... the IETF's qualification process is the general
process from which projects are inducted into working groups and then
approved within that group and the AD's for vetting. The Standards Protocol
is defined in such documents as RFC2026, BCP78 and BCP79. Its the protocol
for how standards are created in this organization.

> Therefore, a

No doubt.