ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Last Call: 'Linklocal Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR)' to Proposed Standard

2005-08-26 02:15:57
Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer(_at_)nic(_dot_)fr> writes:

It is not sufficient to make it an open standard (by your criteria, Java
or PDF would be non-proprietary). The most important criteria is the
fact that the specification is NOT controlled by any given private
entity.

If you go look at the documents that Stuart posted references to, you will
find:

| 21. Copyright Notice
| 
|    Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).
| 
|    This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
|    contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
|    retain all their rights. For the purposes of this document,
|    the term "BCP 78" refers exclusively to RFC 3978, "IETF Rights
|    in Contributions", published March 2005.

In other words, they're exactly as controlled by a given private entity as
any other IETF work.  Is the IETF a private entity?  Is SMTP controlled by
the IETF?

I think your criteria doesn't survive logical scrutiny.  If other people
have access to the standard, can implement the standard, and can build on
the standard to create a newer revision of it, I can't imagine what
definition of "proprietary" you're using that would apply.

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra(_at_)stanford(_dot_)edu)             
<http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>