Hi,
I do not think there is consensus that what you want is what the IETF
wants.
David Harrington
dbharrington(_at_)comcast(_dot_)net
ietfdbh(_at_)comcast(_dot_)net
-----Original Message-----
From: Lawrence Rosen [mailto:lrosen(_at_)rosenlaw(_dot_)com]
Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2007 6:46 AM
To: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: RE: A priori IPR choices [Re: Third
LastCall:draft-housley-tls-authz-extns]
Ted Hardie wrote:
Ah, I see why you appear to have changed your position.
You actually
want the result you're arguing for built into the charter of
the IPR working group, beforehand without letting the
community actually
discuss it. Thanks for re-affirming my faith in your
consistency.
You're welcome. To state it more fairly, I want the result
I'm arguing for
to be built into the charter so that the WG can examine
fairly what it will
take to reach that goal. The WG cannot adopt a policy for
IETF, only propose
one. But the WG's work should be goal-directed.
By the way, that's not such a change of tactic for that
particular IPR-WG.
You previously argued in committee that the current IETF
patent policy is
NOT a problem, and in that spirit the IPR-WG previously buried every
counter-proposal we made as "off-charter"! So let's play the
charter game
fairly, please, by the same rules you played them. Let's
charter the IPR-WG
to develop a proposal that achieves a specific goal to fix a
perceived
patent problem. You can always argue against it in committee
or vote against
it if a serious proposal toward that goal gets before the
IETF as a whole.
/Larry Rosen
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf