At 8:42 AM -0700 10/19/07, Paul Hoffman wrote:
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.
I think this is a critical point. The IETF has historically decided whether to
deal with licenses when it is faced with a specific technology. That has the
real advantage that the contributors can consider the trade-offs (way X is
known to be encumbered, with a license required; way Y is not
known to be encumbered, but involves new code paths that will likely be
slower). For some working groups, we start out with a technology under
consideration and "early on in discussion of a technology" and "when the
working group starts" may be pretty similar from the point of view of
considering that trade-off. For other working groups (DNSEXT is one example,
DHC is another), the long-lived nature of their charters and the continual
emergence of newly related technologies means that "early on in discussion
of a technology" may be years later than "when the working group starts".
Speaking personally, I believe the ability to consider that trade-off is
a very good thing, and I would hate to lose it. I also think that making
that decision in the working group is the best way, despite it being very
messy in many cases, because we get the strongest participation from
the community of developers and deployers there.
regards,
Ted
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf