[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: What if... - question about how this is supposed to work - Re: ADMIN: #1198 is closed (Re: #1167 Excerpt labelling)
----- Original Message -----
From: "todd glassey" <todd.glassey at worldnet.att.net>
To: "todd glassey" <todd.glassey at att.net>; "Harald Alvestrand"
<harald at alvestrand.no>
Cc: <ipr-wg at ietf.org>; "Spencer Dawkins" <spencer at mcsr-labs.org>
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)
> 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?
err 'ware' - SIC - sorry
>
> 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" <todd.glassey at worldnet.att.net>
> To: "Harald Alvestrand" <harald at alvestrand.no>; "todd glassey"
> <todd.glassey at att.net>
> Cc: <ipr-wg at ietf.org>; "Spencer Dawkins" <spencer at mcsr-labs.org>
> 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
> > 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 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
> > real-world based on the design specified in the IETF Standard'? or does
it
> > mean something else?
> >
> > I ask this because 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 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
> > 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 Trademark with regard to
> the
> > Compliance 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
> > maintenance 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.
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Harald Alvestrand" <harald at alvestrand.no>
> > To: "todd glassey" <todd.glassey at att.net>
> > Cc: <ipr-wg at ietf.org>; "Spencer Dawkins" <spencer at mcsr-labs.org>
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2006 1:10 AM
> > Subject: ADMIN: #1198 is closed (Re: #1167 Excerpt labeling)
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >"Spencer Dawkins" <spencer at mcsr-labs.org> 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 licensing, 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
> > > Ipr-wg at ietf.org
> > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg
> >
>
_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wg at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg