At 12:28 PM -0700 3/10/09, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
Lawrence Rosen wrote:
If we use different terminology to identify this IETF RFC, how does that
change anything?
Paul Hoffman replied:
Because you earlier complained about IETF standards having known patent
issues. Now we are talking about experimental protocols that are not
standards.
And I am saying that it doesn't make a bit of difference legally. If you
infringe for experimental reasons, that is still infringement.
And no one has said any different. Please stay on topic. We are not talking
about standards, we are talking about un-standard protocols or, in this case,
extensions.
I don't think we should publish under the IETF imprimatur if there are
*unresolved* known patent issues about which ignorant and cautious people
continue to speculate blindly.
Fine. You don't have to be part of "we". There are plenty of different "we"
that embrace different patent policies. Or are you trying to convert us from
one religion to another?
Why should any of us waste time and money on
IETF and commercial and FOSS "experiments" if they may cost us too much
money downstream?
You probably shouldn't. By all means, stop implementing draft-housley-tls-authz
if you feel that way. Ditto for any other non-standard protocol that has ever
been published.
Its authors are free to publish draft-housley-tls-authz already. Google is
free to index that document already. Why do you insist upon granting it an
IETF RFC status without first deciding if the disclosed patent claims are
likely bogus?
Because there may be people who will want to implement the protocol in an
interoperable fashion. 'Twas ever thus.
--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf