John Klensin wrote:
If you want to pursue this further, I think it would be helpful
if you started supplying arguments that we haven't heard,
repeatedly, before. Neither repeating those arguments, nor
making the assumption that the IETF agrees with your goals and
priorities, seems to be causing progress in this area. What it
does accomplish is to get people to stop reading threads on this
subject, which further lowers the odds of getting IETF consensus
on a change in position.
John and others,
I have never made my proposal on ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org before. Indeed, I only
started contributing on this list recently. I'm pleased that YOU have heard
my arguments before in other venues, but there's no reason to assume that
others here have done so. I don't assume that IETF agrees with my goals or
priorities, nor perhaps do you have any reason to assume that the broader
IETF community agrees with you.
I made my suggestion here to re-charter the IPR-WG after lurking on the list
for long enough to understand (I hope) the issues that this list considers
and the cultural environment in which those considerations occur, and long
after I became convinced that at least some of the people participating on
the much narrower IPR-WG list were culturally and philosophically unwilling
to listen to *any* arguments that IETF patent policy should be clarified or
changed.
Your reference to the older and more stubbornly traditional ISO, IEC and
IEEE merely reminds me of important counter-examples, W3C and OASIS. Each
standards organization needs to articulate its patent policy in light of its
own mission and culture. IETF is a world-wide organization of volunteers
that standardizes much of the Internet. This is an *open* Internet,
available to all. Encumbering it with non-free patents is a danger that W3C
and OASIS have addressed. I suggest that IETF should address it too!
So please stand back a bit, John, and let the arguments on all sides be
fairly raised and rebutted before the participants on this list. Let's see
if consensus does arise here. Please don't assume, as I don't assume, that
everyone who has an opinion has already spoken up.
I hope that others here will speak up.
***************
Once again, specifically what I request is that we charter the IETF IPR-WG
to propose policies and procedures, consistent with the worldwide mission of
IETF, which will result in IETF specifications unencumbered by restrictive,
non-free patents.
***************
-----Original Message-----
From: John C Klensin [mailto:john-ietf(_at_)jck(_dot_)com]
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2007 11:15 AM
To: lrosen(_at_)rosenlaw(_dot_)com; ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: RE: A priori IPR choices [Re: Third Last Call:draft-housley-tls-
authz-extns]
--On Saturday, 20 October, 2007 19:15 -0700 Lawrence Rosen
<lrosen(_at_)rosenlaw(_dot_)com> wrote:
...
But we're talking here about IETF standards, specifications
that are prepared cooperatively and for free by talented
individuals, companies and countries around the world. These
specifications are intended for implementation everywhere to
facilitate communications among us all.
...
Larry, with all due respect, if you substitute "ISO/IEC JTC1" or
"IEEE" (at least in the computer and communications areas for
both) in the above statements, they will still be true. The
IETF is not particularly special in this regard.
To me, the question is simply one of whether trying to insist on
an unencumbered regime (whether for technical, economic, or
moral/ religious reasons) is important enough to justify
rejecting, a priori, any encumbered technology. The IETF has
decided, repeatedly, that the answer is "no" and "we want to
look at these things on a case-by-case basis and evaluate the
tradeoffs". While the part that follows the "no" differs, that
is the same conclusion reached by ISO, IEC, IEEE, and others.
If you want to pursue this further, I think it would be helpful
if you started supplying arguments that we haven't heard,
repeatedly, before. Neither repeating those arguments, nor
making the assumption that the IETF agrees with your goals and
priorities, seems to be causing progress in this area. What it
does accomplish is to get people to stop reading threads on this
subject, which further lowers the odds of getting IETF consensus
on a change in position.
Just my opinion, of course.
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf