Mike, Answer from a 10Km altitude perspective... Our rules do not have dependencies on particular licensing terms, whether RAND, free license, free without any notification or specific license, defensive/reciprocal, or otherwise. The obligation of authors and companies is to disclose whatever it is they need to disclose and, optionally whatever licensing terms they feel they want to disclose along with it. After that, it is up to the WG and, ultimately, the community on Last Call. Absolutely nothing in the rules would prohibit us from standardizing a technology that requires an expensive license, negotiated on an individual basis and with no promises of fair or equitable treatment for license applicants. In practice, I have doubts that any technology with those sorts of restrictions would actually be standardized by the IETF community, but there is no formal bar to trying (or to identifying an I-D with an intended Standards-Track status). john --On Wednesday, June 22, 2011 11:11 -0400 Michael StJohns <mstjohns@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > A quick couple of questions to the list based on a document I > saw recently. > > If a document (an ID in this case) contains encumbered > material (in this case consists of 90%+ encumbered material), > and the document is authored by the organization (or members > of the organization) that holds the encumbrance, should the > document contain an IPR disclosure itself or is it sufficient > to submit a IPR disclosure through the IETF web interface? > > Should the ID Nits tool check for the inclusion of the notices > for IPR required by section 5.1 of RFC 3978? > > If a document contains primarily encumbered material, is > authored by the owner of the encumbered material or its > employees and is a non-work group document, is it appropriate > to tag such document as "Intended Status: Standards Track"? > > For the first question, RFC3979 appears to say no. However, > I'm not sure the specific case I cite was considered. > > For the last question - my guess is that it depends - > specifically on the grant of license for the encumbered > material and whether or not there are alternatives. Given > that, would RAND terms be sufficient in any case to advance > this as a standard? > > Thanks - Mike > > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf