This is how I interpret RFC 2026, and this is where I will draw
the line on process grounds. I've seen nothing in our recent
discussion that would cause me to change my interpretation.
Takiing no position on the validity of IPR claims is not tantamount
to treating any trade secret claim as if it were valid.
The whole intent of the wording in 2026 is to take most IPR-related
decisions out of the realm of process, and put them in the hands of
the individuals in the community to be decided on a case-by-case basis.
As far as I can tell, this is the most effective and reasonable way of
dealing with the IPR mess (disaster would be a better word) which has
ever been devised by a standards body...but only time will tell.
Of course, IF the working group is approved, and IF the working
group reaches consensus to use RC2, and IF the specification passes
the IESG, you're free to appeal that decision. From a practical
point-of-view, I have a hard time that the document will get that
far without RSA's cooperation...not to mention yours.