On Mar 6, 2009, at 2:58 PM, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
Tim Polk wrote:
As stated in the Last Call announcement, I had intended to request
IESG evaluation for publication on the standards track. It is clear
that the community does not support publication of this document on
the standards track. However, the Last Call comments show rough
consensus for publication as an Experimental RFC.
I do not understand why an "Experimental RFC" is different in
principle from
a "standards track RFC" when it comes to patents, since even
experimental
use of patented technology is an infringement. However,...
I note that advancement on the standard track can hinge on
implementors ability to obtain suitable licenses of essential rights.
As a compromise and as an IETF experiment for this one TLS proposal, I
suggest that we try to apply the procedure described in the W3C Patent
Policy, section 7, "Exception Handling", as adapted to conform to
the IETF
mode of operation.
[See http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/#sec-Exception
]
Exception to what? That is, which IETF policy do you think precludes
the IETF from publication this I-D as supported by (apparent) consensus?
-- Kurt
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf