At 10:46 AM +0200 10/19/07, Simon Josefsson wrote:
Paul Hoffman <paul(_dot_)hoffman(_at_)vpnc(_dot_)org> writes:
At 4:10 PM -0700 10/18/07, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
Isn't it preferable to get into early battles over IP rules--and make sure
those rules are clear to WG participants--before we have wasted our time and
resources developing specifications that half the world (or more) can't
implement?
I don't know which of the IETF WGs you have been involved with, but
that hasn't been the case for any of the ones I have dealt with. Could
you give an example of an WG in which this would have been preferable?
The DNSEXT WG is a good example where patented technology has been
presented and time has been spent on discussing what to do with it.
Some time later the working group drafted a requirements document (RFC
4986) which contained the following requirement '5.2. No Known
Intellectual Property Encumbrance'.
This is a good example of how Lawrence's proposal would not have
worked. The technology you are talking about came up years after the
WG was formed.
The inclination to standardize only non-patented technology in DNSEXT is
fairly strong. If the WG had made the policy explicit early on, the
discussions related to the patented ideas could have been more easily
dismissed. Time could be spent on more productive work.
"Early on" is much different than "when the WG is formed". It is
reasonable to talk about IPR desired *on a particular technology*
when that technology begins to be discussed in the WG.
--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf