Steven Bellovin wrote:
All that said, the above is my strawman that I've just torched. This
is why we need a draft -- until we have one, we won't know if it's a
plausible, useful idea or not. In fact, a metadraft -- one that simply
set out the questions that a concrete proposal should address -- would
be a worthwhile contribution in its own regard.
In honor of open source, I'm glad to submit someone else's work as my first
draft: http://www.w3.org/2004/pp/psig/.
This is an effective working model. I'm sure it would have to be revised to
fit IETF's more democratic operations.
For a detailed description, see
http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/. In particular see
section 7. [This is a document I helped a little bit to write, several years
ago.]
Kudos to our friends in W3C for doing this well.
/Larry
Lawrence Rosen
Rosenlaw & Einschlag, a technology law firm (www.rosenlaw.com)
3001 King Ranch Road, Ukiah, CA 95482
707-485-1242 * cell: 707-478-8932 * fax: 707-485-1243
Skype: LawrenceRosen
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf