ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: A priori IPR choices [Re: Third Last Call:draft-housley-tls-authz-extns]

2007-10-19 10:57:50
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'.

And is the text you quote specific to all DNS technology? Or just that
one that is the subject of the document you cite? (To be clear, it is
the latter.)

The inclination to standardize only non-patented technology in DNSEXT is
fairly strong.

Yes, but the discussion still works best on a technology-by-technology
basis, not on the broad "all DNS technology" swath that would be
implied if the decision had to be made at WG formation time.

Thomas

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>