On Mon, 5 Nov 2007 08:44:33 -0800
"Lawrence Rosen" <lrosen(_at_)rosenlaw(_dot_)com> wrote:
Harald Alvestrand wrote:
The outcomes I see possible of such a discussion are:
<snip>
I can't be in Vancouver for this meeting. Probably few of the others
who have been vocal on these issues on these email lists can be in
Vancouver either.
I hope no decisions will be arrived at in what will probably be an
unrepresentative arena. In-person meetings are an ineffective and
expensive way to decide things in the Internet age. In any event,
these email lists have elicited more comments than any meeting in
Vancouver could properly address. How do we intend to move toward
consensus?
Per 2418, of course the mailing list decision is the one that counts.
OTOH -- and as is well-understood -- it's often much harder to assess
consensus over the net than in person. (It's also harder to reach
consensus, in many cases, since email tends to be a polarizing medium,
prone to flames and other forms of intemperate behavior.)
If you have any suggestions for how to deal with these problems -- and
they are problems -- I think the IETF would be very interested in
hearing them. (And because I realize that this statement can be
misinterpreted, given the lack of tone of voice and body language on a
mailing list, let me stress that I'm being 100% serious, complimentary,
etc.)
The alternative to a re-charter is for this complaint to be brought
up again and again, every time someone has the audacity to recommend
an IETF specification that is encumbered so to prevent FOSS
implementations. Is that preferable?
I'm no longer an AD; if I were, my attitude would be simple: the IETF
has decided, as a group, that patented technology is acceptable.
There's no point to reopening the question every individual document.
Were this a legal matter, I'd cry "stare decisis". I'm not saying you
shouldn't keep pushing, but if the IESG were to ignore a consensus to
follow the current policy it would be challenged and rightly so. (The
substantive issue on the document currently being discussed is not the
fact of the patent -- under current policy, that's acceptable -- but
rather the timing of the disclosure.)
The question to discuss now is whether enough has changed since the last
consensus call on this topic, in March-April 2003, that it pays to
reopen the rechartering question. I personally don't think so, but I'm
willing to be persuaded otherwise.
--Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf