What if... - question about how this is supposed to work - Re: ADMIN: #1198 is closed (Re: #1167 Exc

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" <todd.glasseyworldnet.att.net>
To: "Harald Alvestrand" <haraldalvestrand.no>; "todd glassey"
<todd.glasseyatt.net>
Cc: <ipr-wgietf.org>; "Spencer
Dawkins" <spencermcsr-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" <haraldalvestrand.no>
> To: "todd glassey" <todd.glasseyatt.net>
> Cc: <ipr-wgietf.org>; "Spencer
Dawkins" <spencermcsr-labs.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2006 1:10 AM
> Subject: ADMIN: #1198 is closed (Re: #1167 Excerpt
labeling)
>
>
> > >
> > >
> > >"Spencer Dawkins" <spencermcsr-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-wgietf.org
> > https:/
/www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg
>


_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wgietf.org
https:/
/www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg