we will now enter the realm of word definitions. An IETF Standard is any document published by the IETF. Standards come in a range of attire, full standards (rare), proposed, informational, historic and a few others.
As you properly have tabled, some of these IETF standards are subject to IPR claims, which the IETF mgmt and its sponsoring organization have prudently recognized. Publication of such material,
encumbered by Intellectual Property Rights, clearly suggests that the IETF standard in question can not, in fact, be represented in open source without violation of IP laws.
Codec and Crypto specs tend to be owned.
then there is this from ISOC in 2003: www.isoc.org/briefings/014/briefing14.pdf
which suggests that, “Mobile IPv4 NAT-traversal protocol extension is specified in
a separate RFC that is IPR-encumbered. “
I’ll leave the creation of the detailed list as a homework assignment.
/bill
Neca eos omnes. Deus suos agnoscet.
On 31July2014Thursday, at 13:13, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 01/08/2014 05:39, manning bill wrote:
>> it has always been my understanding that (with a few exceptions that have become more and more common over the years) IETF standards allowed for open source development.
>
> What exceptions, Bill? IETF standards are open voluntary standards
> that anyone can implement how they like.
>
> It's a fact that open source implementations that infringe patents
> are intrinsically problematic, so if there is an IPR disclosure that
> doesn't offer open-source-friendly conditions, that can be a problem.
>
> It's a fact that code fragments in RFCs are normally subject to the
> Simplified BSD License (for the full story see the IETF Trust Legal
> Provisions).
>
> Brian
Attachment:
briefing14.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document
Attachment:
briefing14.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document