Paul,
Paul Vixie wrote:
...
i don't agree that it shouldn't be allowed to be an rfc. 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. The IETF exists to make
the Internet work better, not to exclusively support the open source
movement. [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.]
but as an informational or experimental rfc, the process ought to be
open to any IPR no matter how strongly encumbered so long as it's
disclosed.
Of course.
Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf