As Marshall notes, a number of the points raised on this thread arise from
equating IETF practices with IRTF practices, whereas these are in fact
quite distinct.
Also it can be noted that AT&T presented technology on which
they have some patents and IETF has very clear guidelines that this is
dscoraged to say the least and group chairs should when two solutions
exist (one patented, one not) always choose non-patented solution
First, this overstates the IETF policy. It is not "always" choose, it is
to preferentially choose, but the WG can decide otherwise.
Second, as I mentioned in the plenary, the IRTF does not have an expressed
IPR policy, though it appears one needs to be developed. I picture such a
policy requiring that, for any technology discussed within RGs that has
related IPR, that the presence of the possible IPR be disclosed; but not
beyond that. The AT&T presentation would be in compliance with such a
policy.
Also have to be noted that most presentations on the live meeting were by
persons who did not try to participate at the mailing list and are completely
unknown to us and this is also against general policies for IETF and IRTF
The IRTF does not have policies in this regard.
In short, like I said in previous email - the presentations were all
opinions of particular organizations and all commercial (even spamcon is
really what I call "commercial" non-profit foundation, as apposed to say
CAUSE) and were not individual submission as is supposed to be done at
IETF and IRTF.
The IRTF does not have policies in this regard.
I do hope chair takes my comments seriously!
I imagine that stepping back from them and phrasing them with a bit less
sharp of a tone would help in this regard.
Vern (IRTF chair)
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg