On Thu, 8 Sep 2005, william(at)elan.net wrote:
Neverheless if I understand it, it has always been a position of IETF
to consider patented technology as being less preferable then patented
for standardization (ok, it also has a lot to do with kind of licese
patened technology has and if its available to everyone's use or not)
and that in case standardization of certain patented technology is
being considered IETF should look at if alternative to it that is
non-patented is available.
The IETF position has gone from what might be described as studious
neutrality (ie you may consider things such as licensing terms) to a
definite preference for non-encumbrance. (Section 8 of RFC 3979):
8. Evaluating Alternative Technologies in IETF Working Groups
In general, IETF working groups prefer technologies with no known IPR
claims or, for technologies with claims against them, an offer of
I think many people at the IETF have no-IPR preferences, but it wasn't
written explicitly as a policy anywhere that I know of prior to RFC3979
What Dean wrote makes lots of sense to me, so I primarily agree with
him, except for his typical dnsext chair bashing - I'm not sure there
is really a case there that chair is blocking discussion. I do agree
Olaf Kolkman (WG co-chair) said:
"Rat Hole Alert" [*]
Please stop this discussion.
Doesn't get plainer.
Av8 Internet Prepared to pay a premium for better service?
www.av8.net faster, more reliable, better service
617 344 9000
Ietf mailing list