Subject: Normatively referenced specifications

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2013 00:58:28 -0800

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

---

From: "Black, David" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2013 18:43:44 -0500

> normatively referenced specification?

I'm concerned - at an abstract level, this question appears to be
headed towards applying the IETF's IPR policy to standards developed
by other standards organizations by virtue of IETF documents
containing normative references to such standards.

I suspect that the IETF could be rather uncomfortable being on the
receiving end of another standards organization doing that to
our standards (applying their IPR policy to IETF standards courtesy
of normative references in their standards).  I might suggest that
a useful criterion for application of IETF's IPR policy to a standard
developed by another organization could be (re)publication of that
document as an IETF standard (to which the IETF IPR policy would
then be clearly applicable).  There are situations in which the
same standard is published by IETF and another standards organization.

I will also observe that as a participant in multiple standards
organizations across which normative references and collaborative
standards development activity occurs, one IPR policy per organization
is quite enough to deal with ... really ;-).

OTOH, I do think that there is a problem in what you observed:

> For what it is worth, I reviewed
> technology was not referenced.

If I were reviewing that draft (e.g., as a Gen-ART reviewer), I would
have raised a major issue about the missing normative reference, as it
is clearly not possible to implement the improved interoperability
behavior for that technology without implementing the technology itself.

That reference, and especially the citation of the entity that developed
the reference, ought to provide implementers who care with enough
direction to start to run down the relevant IPR considerations.

Thanks,
--David

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ipr-wg [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of SM
> Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2013 3:58 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Normatively referenced specifications
> 
> Hello,
> _______________________________________________
> Ipr-wg mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2013 00:39:12 -0800

Hi David,
>containing normative references to such standards.

Yes.

>same standard is published by IETF and another standards organization.

The republication might cause other problems as you then have two 
specifications.  There may be a divergence between the two 
specifications in the far future.  As mentioned above the IETF might 
be uncomfortable if it was at the receiving end.

>is quite enough to deal with ... really ;-).

:-)

>direction to start to run down the relevant IPR considerations.

I would list the issue as minor in an area-specific review if I need 
to read the referenced document to understand the draft being 
reviewed.  I agree with what is written above.

Regards,
-sm

---

From: "Dale Mohlenhoff (dmohlenh)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2013 16:32:48 +0000

Hi,

I agree with the comments made below.  I think it creates many concerns
when an IETF standard is incorporated into another standard and IETF's IPR
declarations are expected to be applied.  Different organizations have
different IPR policies and IETF should not expect to rely on other
organizations IPR declarations if it were to incorporate another standard
into its standards.  Likewise, other organizations should not necessarily
be able to rely on IETF declarations if they incorporate an IETF standard.
 In some cases this may be satisfactory, but not in every case.
Therefore, the policy should be for the appropriate declarations to be
made in the standards organization that has incorporated other standards.

Regards,
Dale

Dale G. Mohlenhoff 
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Senior Corporate Counsel                                           170
West Tasman Drive
                   
                   San Jose, CA  95134-1706
[email-masked]
Direct:     +1.408.525.9589
Mobile:   +1.509.991.6003
 
This e-mail may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole
use of the intended recipient.  Any review, use, distribution or
disclosure by others is strictly prohibited.  If you are not the intended
recipient (or authorized to receive for the recipient), please contact the
sender by reply e-mail and delete all copies of this message.

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2013 11:36:55 -0500

Dale, your interpretation is exactly the opposite of what I thought Dave 
was saying.
Referencing a spec normally does not and ought not mean that the 
referencers IPR rules apply to the referenced specification.  They 
can't, since in the abstract the referencer has no control over the IPR 
grants of the referenced document.

And IETF IPR grants apply when implementing IETF RFCs, even when those 
RFCs are implemented in conjunction with some other specification.  The 
IPR grants don't apply (as I understand it all bets are off) if you 
modify the spec.

Equally, the IETF can not insist that our IPR rules apply to a spec we 
reference.

Yours,
Joel

---

From: "Dale Mohlenhoff (dmohlenh)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2013 16:44:59 +0000

Hi Joel,

I agree and I obviously did not make my point clearly.  I agree with you
that IETF IPR declarations only apply to IETF specifications.  Further,
the declarations apply to IETF IPR specifications that are implemented in
conjunction with other specifications, however, the declarations will only
apply to the IETF specification and not to the other specifications.   I
also agree with you that if the IETF specification is modified in any way
when incorporated into another specification, then the IETF declarations
do not apply.  Sorry that I did not make this clear in my previous email.

Regards,
Dale

Dale G. Mohlenhoff 
Cisco Systems, Inc.
                   
                   San Jose, CA  95134-1706
[email-masked]
Direct:     +1.408.525.9589
Mobile:   +1.509.991.6003

---

From: "Lawrence Rosen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2013 09:03:16 -0800

Dale Mohlenhoff wrote:
> I also agree with you that if the IETF specification is modified 
> in any way when incorporated into another specification, 
> then the IETF declarations do not apply.

Where in the IETF rules does it say that conformity to the spec is a legal
requirement in order to implement it? How do you reconcile that with the
open source rule that says that any FOSS software can be modified without
asking additional permissions? 

I know that a patent grant may or may not apply to modified works, but
Dale's statement seems to make that an absolute in every circumstance, and
makes conformity a prerequisite for implementation. Is conformity to the
spec now the most important IETF goal, surpassing FOSS licensing freedom?

/Larry

Lawrence Rosen
Rosenlaw & Einschlag, a technology law firm (www.rosenlaw.com)
3001 King Ranch Rd., Ukiah, CA 95482
Office: 707-485-1242
Linkedin profile: http://linkd.in/XXpHyu 

-----Original Message-----
From: Dale Mohlenhoff (dmohlenh) [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2013 8:45 AM
To: Joel M. Halpern; SM; Black, David
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Normatively referenced specifications

Hi Joel,

I agree and I obviously did not make my point clearly.  I agree with you
that IETF IPR declarations only apply to IETF specifications.  Further, the
declarations apply to IETF IPR specifications that are implemented in
conjunction with other specifications, however, the declarations will only
apply to the IETF specification and not to the other specifications.   I
also agree with you that if the IETF specification is modified in any way
when incorporated into another specification, then the IETF declarations do
not apply.  Sorry that I did not make this clear in my previous email.

Regards,
Dale

Dale G. Mohlenhoff
Cisco Systems, Inc.
                   
                   San Jose, CA  95134-1706 [email-masked]
Direct:     +1.408.525.9589
Mobile:   +1.509.991.6003
 
This e-mail may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole
use of the intended recipient.  Any review, use, distribution or disclosure
by others is strictly prohibited.  If you are not the intended recipient (or
authorized to receive for the recipient), please contact the sender by reply
e-mail and delete all copies of this message.

On 12/18/13 8:36 AM, "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>Dale, your interpretation is exactly the opposite of what I thought 
>Dave was saying.
>> I agree with the comments made below.  I think it creates many 
>>concerns  when an IETF standard is incorporated into another standard 
>>and IETF's IPR  declarations are expected to be applied.  Different 
>>organizations have  different IPR policies and IETF should not expect 
>>to rely on other  organizations IPR declarations if it were to 
>>incorporate another standard  into its standards.  Likewise, other 
>>organizations should not necessarily  be able to rely on IETF 
>>declarations if they incorporate an IETF standard.
>> Therefore, the policy should be for the appropriate declarations to 
>>be  made in the standards organization that has incorporated other 
>>standards.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Dale
>>
>>
>> Dale G. Mohlenhoff
>> Cisco Systems, Inc.
>>                     San Jose, CA  95134-1706 [email-masked]
>> Direct:     +1.408.525.9589
>> Mobile:   +1.509.991.6003
>>
>> This e-mail may contain confidential and privileged material for the 
>>sole  use of the intended recipient.  Any review, use, distribution or  
>>disclosure by others is strictly prohibited.  If you are not the 
>>intended  recipient (or authorized to receive for the recipient), 
>>please contact the  sender by reply e-mail and delete all copies of 
>>this message.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>> headed towards applying the IETF's IPR policy to standards 
>>>> developed by other standards organizations by virtue of IETF 
>>>> documents containing normative references to such standards.
>>>
>>> Yes.
>>>
>>>> receiving end of another standards organization doing that to our 
>>>> standards (applying their IPR policy to IETF standards courtesy of 
>>>> normative references in their standards).  I might suggest that a 
>>>> useful criterion for application of IETF's IPR policy to a standard 
>>>> standards development activity occurs, one IPR policy per 
>>>> organization is quite enough to deal with ... really ;-).
>>>
>>> :-)
>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> If I were reviewing that draft (e.g., as a Gen-ART reviewer), I 
>>>>would  have raised a major issue about the missing normative 
>>>>reference, as it  is clearly not possible to implement the improved 
>>>>interoperability  behavior for that technology without implementing 
>>>>the technology itself.
>>>>
>>>> That reference, and especially the citation of the entity that 
>>>>developed  the reference, ought to provide implementers who care 
>>>>with enough  direction to start to run down the relevant IPR 
>>>>considerations.
>>>

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2013 09:40:28 -0800

On 12/18/2013 8:36 AM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
> Dave was saying. Referencing a spec normally does not and ought not
> mean that the referencers IPR rules apply to the referenced
> specification.  They can't, since in the abstract the referencer has
> no control over the IPR grants of the referenced document.
>
> And IETF IPR grants apply when implementing IETF RFCs, even when
> those RFCs are implemented in conjunction with some other
> specification.  The IPR grants don't apply (as I understand it all
> bets are off) if you modify the spec.
>
> Equally, the IETF can not insist that our IPR rules apply to a spec
> we reference.

I think this confuses the nature of what our disclosure rules mean. For 
example, they don't mean that we are affecting some other standards
group.  Rather they affect decision-making within the IETF.

So, absent a clear consensus from legal experts who are familiar with 
the IETF's IPR rules, I disagree with Joel's assessment.

As I just posted on rtcweb:

> 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.

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.

d/
-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net

---

From: Michael Cameron <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2013 17:55:46 +0000

Larry wrote:

>>Where in the IETF rules does it say that conformity to the spec is a legal requirement in order to implement it?

Conformity to the spec is a technical requirement for interoperability. One can try to implement similar functionality outside of the Specification (and may be successful), but they may have difficulty marketing the box to a carrier who wants your assurance that it is protocol compliant (when tecnically, it is not).

>>How do you reconcile that with the open source rule that says that any FOSS software can be modified without asking additional permissions? 

Company A is the inventor a high level protocol X adopted as an IETF RFC and declared by A under RAND.

Company B develops source code that implements X and makes it avaliable under one of the permissive copyleft licenses.

Company C is free to do as they wish with respect to B's source code (subject to the copyleft license--e.g., modify it, distribute it, etc.,) but B and C are still obligated to respect A's IPR rights.     

Ultimately, one must map A's patent claims to the Specification to determine the scope of Company A's rights.  How anyone implements protocol X (using FOSS, proprietary code, etc., is irrelevant to determing A's rights).

---

From: Michael Cameron <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2013 18:09:56 +0000

Joel is correct when the IPR is owned by two different entities, such as A & B.  If Company A has declared FRAND under an IEEE Specification with respect to an invention, their competitor Company B cannot magically transform that FRAND Declaration into a royalty free obligation merely by referencing Company A's IEEE Specification into Company B's royalty free IETF submission. 

Of course, the IETF WG can certainly take into account Company A's IEEE FRAND Declaration when deciding how to proceed with respect to Company B's IETF submission--maybe they tell Company B to find a different solution for Company A's portion. 

But Dave may be right when the IPR is owned by one entity--If A owns the IEEE invention and IETF invention, and one is declared under FRAND and the other under defensive suspension, then an argument might be made that the later filed IPR Declaration governs the entire Specification UNLESS A makes clear to the WG that the defensive suspension only applies to the IETF part and FRAND governs the IEEE part-in which case the WG is free to decide how to proceed.

On 12/18/2013 8:36 AM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
> RFCs are implemented in conjunction with some other specification.  
> The IPR grants don't apply (as I understand it all bets are off) if 
> you modify the spec.
>

I think this confuses the nature of what our disclosure rules mean. For example, they don't mean that we are affecting some other standards group.  Rather they affect decision-making within the IETF.

So, absent a clear consensus from legal experts who are familiar with the IETF's IPR rules, I disagree with Joel's assessment.

Here's a simple example:

d/

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2013 13:15:32 -0500

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

>> Absent a clear and compelling presentation from legal
>> experts, common sense needs to prevail in the IETF's
>> interpretation of its rules.
>> 
>    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

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2013 13:18:24 -0500

THe part that is relevant to this discussion are the IPR licensing terms 
stated by folks in conjunction with our policy.
And yes, they can make broader grants about other specifications when 
they provide those licenses, but from an IETF perspective what folks 
look at, and what we are discussing, is the licensing terms for use in 
the specification.

Yours,
Joel

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2013 10:23:44 -0800

On 12/18/2013 10:09 AM, Michael Cameron wrote:
> But Dave may be right when the IPR is owned by one entity

This is the sort of attempt at nuance that is impractical and, by my 
reading, does not apply to the IETF's disclosure requirement:

RFC 3979:

    6.6.  When is a Disclosure Required?

    IPR disclosures under Sections 6.1.1. and 6.1.2 are required with
    respect to IPR that is owned directly or indirectly, by the
    individual or his/her employer or sponsor (if any) or that such
    persons otherwise have the right to license or assert.

This language does not care about whether the resulting specification 
text is by reference or direct exposition.  It does not care whether the 
content is standardized elsewhere.  It does not care how the information 
is packaged or how the resulting use of the information is packaged.

What it cares about is the knowledge and 'interest' of the contributor, 
during their participation in IETF discussions.

The rule is nicely simple and without nuance.  Let's not try to invent 
nuanced interpretation of it.

d/

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2013 10:26:15 -0800

> look at, and what we are discussing, is the licensing terms for use in

Whereas I read the challenging part of this discussion as having to do 
with requirements for disclosure.  Certainly the assertions in the 
thread that gave me pause were ones that claimed clever, nuanced 
interpretations of our rules in order to avoid disclosure.

Once IPR is disclosed, how the IETF chooses to deal with that 
information might indeed get complicated, nuanced or whatever.

d/

---

From: Michael Cameron <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2013 18:29:38 +0000

We are discussing 2 different things--one thread of this conversation is what disclosure is required (your e-mail below), the other thread is what IPR Policy applies to a submission having a normative reference (my referenced e-mail). 

-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Crocker [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2013 10:24 AM
To: Michael Cameron; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Normatively referenced specifications

> But Dave may be right when the IPR is owned by one entity

This is the sort of attempt at nuance that is impractical and, by my reading, does not apply to the IETF's disclosure requirement:

RFC 3979:

This language does not care about whether the resulting specification text is by reference or direct exposition.  It does not care whether the content is standardized elsewhere.  It does not care how the information is packaged or how the resulting use of the information is packaged.

What it cares about is the knowledge and 'interest' of the contributor, during their participation in IETF discussions.

The rule is nicely simple and without nuance.  Let's not try to invent nuanced interpretation of it.

d/

---

From: Michael Cameron <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2013 18:31:18 +0000

>>Whereas I read the challenging part of this discussion as having to do with requirements for disclosure.  Certainly the assertions in the thread that gave me pause were ones that claimed clever, nuanced interpretations of our rules in order to avoid disclosure.

>>Once IPR is disclosed, how the IETF chooses to deal with that information might indeed get complicated, nuanced or whatever.

Agreed!

d/

---

From: "Dale Mohlenhoff (dmohlenh)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2013 18:32:35 +0000

Agreed and from my standpoint the second point is a critical one given
some of the things going on in other standards organizations.

Dale G. Mohlenhoff 
Cisco Systems, Inc.
                   
                   San Jose, CA  95134-1706
[email-masked]
Direct:     +1.408.525.9589
Mobile:   +1.509.991.6003

On 12/18/13 10:29 AM, "Michael Cameron" <[email-masked]>
wrote:

>We are discussing 2 different things--one thread of this conversation is
>what disclosure is required (your e-mail below), the other thread is what
>IPR Policy applies to a submission having a normative reference (my
>referenced e-mail).
>

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2013 13:33:46 -0500

Now I see what you (and John) are getting at.  I am not sure exactly 
what our rules say, and this is likely an area that can be gamed.  But 
since our rules are that you have to disclose what is needed to 
implement the specification, it would seem reasonable (but really needs 
a lawyer, which Dale is and I am not) that this would apply to many 
normative references.  A normative reference that is needed to 
understand the spec but not to implement it might be an even more 
nuanced case.

Yours,
Joel

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2013 13:37:17 -0500

--On Wednesday, December 18, 2013 18:29 +0000 Michael Cameron
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> We are discussing 2 different things--one thread of this
> conversation is what disclosure is required (your e-mail
> below), the other thread is what IPR Policy applies to a
> submission having a normative reference (my referenced
> e-mail). 

Much as some people persist in assuming otherwise, the IETF
doesn't have an IPR policy that would touch on what
non-copyright grants or rights to implement or use something are
required.  There is only a disclosure policy.  So Dave --and I
and others-- are talking about the disclosure policy.  As far as
what licensing terms are required in referenced documents, there
is no such requirement, not because the documents are
incorporated by reference but because there or no requirements
on the primary/ referencing document either.  Just a requirement
about disclosure by any who can reasonably be expected to know
about the IPR.

   john

> This is the sort of attempt at nuance that is impractical and,
> by my reading, does not apply to the IETF's disclosure
> requirement:

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2013 13:35:48 -0500

Yours,
Joel

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2013 13:41:51 -0500

And the disclosure rule in question is only incumbent upon someone 
participating in that work in the IETF.
A normative reference to a document in an IETF RFC or I-D does not mean 
that some non-participant in that work in the IETF who has IPR on that 
document needs to disclose the IPR.

Yours,
Joel

---

From: "Dale Mohlenhoff (dmohlenh)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2013 18:46:33 +0000

I agree John.  However, this is an area that has caused some issues to
arise already and I think will continue to do so.  This is not just an
IETF issue, however, would it make sense to consider language to address
this issue or just state that a declarant must put these constraints in
their declaration.  I am thinking out loud here, but I understand your
point that the current IETF IPR Policy does not address this.

Dale G. Mohlenhoff 
Cisco Systems, Inc.
                   
                   San Jose, CA  95134-1706
[email-masked]
Direct:     +1.408.525.9589
Mobile:   +1.509.991.6003

---

From: Michael Cameron <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2013 18:54:45 +0000

Agreed--the IETF, IEEE, ITU etc., IPR policies do not mandate that if an invention is to be adopted as a standard, it must be made available on a FRAND, RAND, defensive suspension, royalty free, etc. basis. 

We operate in a patent thicket in which there may be a number of patents owned by engineers, garage inventors, small companies, universities, etc., that are necessarily infringed by a certain standard, but whose inventors are oblivious to the standards setting process. It would not make sense for a standards organization to punish the members who are doing the heavy lifting in the standards org by making them give up their rights (or holding them  to a certain standard), while those who are not involved are free to assert their patent rights however they wish. 

-----Original Message-----
From: John C Klensin [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2013 10:37 AM
To: Michael Cameron; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: Normatively referenced specifications

--On Wednesday, December 18, 2013 18:29 +0000 Michael Cameron <[email-masked]> wrote:

> We are discussing 2 different things--one thread of this conversation 
> is what disclosure is required (your e-mail below), the other thread 
> is what IPR Policy applies to a submission having a normative 
> reference (my referenced e-mail).

Much as some people persist in assuming otherwise, the IETF doesn't have an IPR policy that would touch on what non-copyright grants or rights to implement or use something are required.  There is only a disclosure policy.  So Dave --and I and others-- are talking about the disclosure policy.  As far as what licensing terms are required in referenced documents, there is no such requirement, not because the documents are incorporated by reference but because there or no requirements on the primary/ referencing document either.  Just a requirement about disclosure by any who can reasonably be expected to know about the IPR.

   john

---

From: todd glassey <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2013 11:51:48 -0800

BS - the IETF's policies are that it is immune from any legal
repercussions from its actions, that the members are working on a holy
mission to create more technology they can sell.

You people crack me up - you talk about transparency and then integrate
enough wiggle room into your practices and standards to allow the BGP4
Route Flap and the other key security flaws in the network to be built
into place.

You want to make the IETF transparent - its simple. Everyone registers
and executes a formal statement complying with BCP78 and BCP79...

Oh wait - that would make you criminally liable for the lies told here
too wouldn't it?  You see my point Counsel?

Todd Glassey

-- 
Todd Glasey - Personal Account Disclaimers apply

Restricted content (intended for the original distribution list only),
standard unintended delivery rules and destruction demand apply to any emails wrongly delivered to you, no IP rights conveyance in any emailing is made, intended or others contemplated.

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2013 21:06:43 -0500

--On Wednesday, December 18, 2013 18:46 +0000 "Dale Mohlenhoff
(dmohlenh)" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> I agree John.  However, this is an area that has caused some
> issues to arise already and I think will continue to do so.

Yes, although many of those issues arise from misunderstanding,
confusion, or similar factors, as evidenced by the observation
that we seem to have small variations on this discussion every
six or nine months, sometimes more often.

> This is not just an IETF issue,

Of course it isn't.  But the IETF has made two, very carefully
considered, decisions.  Whether they are optimal or not given
the various tradeoffs, or even viable, is something that could
be debated endlessly (and has been) but the IETF keeps making
very nearly the same decisions after those debates.

They can be stated in different ways, but are:

(1)  We are not going to do "membership", including
	avoiding any sort of "apply and formally sign off and
	acknowledge a set of rules as a condition for
	membership/ participation", especially a set for which
	the organizations for which people work can be asked to
	sign off and held accountable.   This differs from many
	SDOs who have precisely those sorts of formalized
	application and membership policies.
(2) Our IPR policies focus entirely on disclosure of
	anything a participant knows, or reasonably should know,
	is encumbered or otherwise IPR-complicated.  This
	differs from those SDOs who focus more on licensing
	terms.

> however, would it make sense
> to consider language to address this issue or just state that
> a declarant must put these constraints in their declaration.

I am not certain I understand the question.  From my naïve
perspective (and, fwiw, I'm not a huge fan of the current policy
stance), it seems that everything that needs to be said has been
said, i.e., that if one knows of encumbrances or restrictions to
a relevant technology, one should disclose and if one is
involved with those encumbrances or restrictions, one must
disclose.  Since that is bound to what one knows and not what
appears in documents or how they are structured, questions about
references versus inline text seem irrelevant unless one is
trying to find a way to split hairs to evade the rules (and
perhaps then, but I make no claim to being an expert).

If you think more language is needed, it much help explain the
issue as you see it if you would suggest some sample text.

> I am thinking out loud here, but I understand your point that
> the current IETF IPR Policy does not address this.   

It is important to stress that "does not address this" was the
result of a very conscious decision, not some possibly-unhappy
accident or omission.

I wanted to repeat that because "I don't think the policy is
appropriate" and "I don't think the policy, as stated, is what
the IETF intended" are two very different positions.

best,
   john

---

From: "Black, David" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2013 22:00:32 -0500

I definitely agree with Dave Crocker's "simple example" involving

> me to participate without divulging my IPR interest in the topic.

For someone who participates in IETF in this fashion, I think RFC 3979 is
already clear on disclosure obligations - see sections 6.1.1 and 6.1.2,
which have been carried forward as sections 5.1.1 and 5.1.2 in
draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-06.txt .  I did not intend to contribute to calling
those obligations into question.

However, SM originally asked about "the licensing exercise", which is a
different concept:

> If, for example, an 

For example, if the IPR in question were owned by an entity subject to
the W3C IPR policy, but that entity had no IETF participation, I would not
expect to see an IETF IPR disclosure.  In such a situation, the normative
reference to the XML spec would be the relevant clue to an implementer who
cares about applicable IPR - whatever happened wrt that IPR at W3C would
be the W3C's concern.

Admittedly, SM asked about this in the context of a quote referring to WG
discussions, so Dave Crocker's example was on point, but I think more
generally, for a spec developed outside the IETF, one cannot rely on
there being IETF IPR disclosures for all of the IPR that may have been
disclosed or otherwise known to whatever group developed that spec.

Thanks,
--David

> Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2013 12:40 PM
> To: Joel M. Halpern; Dale Mohlenhoff (dmohlenh); SM; Black, David
> Cc: [email-masked]

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2013 22:37:47 -0800

Hi Larry,
>asking additional permissions?

As far as I am aware the IETF does not do conformance.

>spec now the most important IETF goal, surpassing FOSS licensing freedom?

The goal(s) is a matter of participation.  If open source people are 
not participating in the discussion about a specification nobody 
would be bothered about the open source implications.  Likewise, if 
the licensing difficulties are not apparent one would assume that 
everything is okay.

Regards,
-sm

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2013 22:24:48 -0800

Hi Dale,
>point that the current IETF IPR Policy does not address this.

There are several angles to the discussion.  The result of addressing 
all the angles  might be a set of complex rules.  The average 
participant will not understand those rules.  There will be 
disagreement about what the rules mean or the rules will be ignored.

Regards,
-sm