Paul Vixie wrote:
... i do think the iesg/iab should think carefully about making
something a proposed standard or draft standard or full standard
without having first negotiated royalty-free use rights on behalf of
all future implementors, as scrocker did with jbezos for the RSADSI
IPR that went into early dnssec.
I don't think we can require the IESG to negotiate anything. There are
all kinds of legal issues there. To my knowledge, both WGs and the
IESG do think carefully about this, but often conclude that the
default IETF conditions (RAND) are realistic and acceptable.
what you call "concluding", i call "railroading" and "inertial ignorance."
From when I was inside the black helicopter, which is a few years ago,
the IESG discussions that I witnessed on this topic were definitely
not conducted in ignorance, but in awareness of the various
conflicting interests. That doesn't mean the right decisions were
reached of course - the ADs are only fallible humans - but your comment
is quite unfair from what I saw.
The IETF exists to make the Internet work better, not to exclusively
support the open source movement.
my arguments on this topic aren't related to the "open source" movement.
Well, I think that is much clearer in *this* message than in your
[This doesn't mean that I am against RF or OSS - it means I want the
IETF to continue to live in the real world, where patents and
royalties continue to exist alongside OSS.]
the hull of brian's boat just scraped the top of an iceberg, but i'm
going to try to answer without having to pull this asteroid-sized chunk
of ice out of the water and show it to all of you.
I'm aware of the iceberg, and incidentally so are the most senior
executives at my employer.
The trick with icebergs is to steer around them, not to try to melt them.
even so, everybody
check your seat belts and shoulder straps, 'cuz i gotta learn ya somehow:
1. in spite of not having a clear corporate status, ietf is a de facto
public trust. companies and people participate in ietf because they
believe certain things, and among those things is what brian said:
"because it's a way to get work done." there are however other
things, and exactly what those things are is at the heart of the
current isoc-ietf-malamud hairball nightmare.
I think this is a category error. The proposal on the table is
how to improve the IETF's administration *without impacting the
standards process one bit*. The concerns you are raising are
orthogonal. So I see no hairball and no nightmare in draft-malamud.
Let's get the administration working properly. And let's separate
any discussion of process transparency and IPR policy from that
completely. You're not raising trivial issues here, but they are
separable from the administrative stuff.
Ietf mailing list