ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Does being an RFC mean anything?

2009-03-11 15:25:25
The recent threads about draft-housley-tls-authz have taught me something I
didn't know about IETF, and I don't like what I've learned.

 

There are, it appears, many types of IETF RFCs, some which are intended to
be called "Internet standards" and others which bear other embedded labels
and descriptions in their boilerplate text that are merely "experimental" or
"informational" or perhaps simply "proposed standard". One contributor here
described the RFC series as "a repository of technical information [that]
will be around when I am no longer around." 

 

The world is now full of standards organizations that treat their works as
more significant than merely "technical information." Why do we need IETF
for that purpose? If all we need is a repository of technical information,
let's just ask Google and Yahoo to build it for us. Maybe our Internet
standards should instead be created in an organized body that pays serious
attention to the ability of the wide world to implement those standards
without patent encumbrances. 

 

But even if IETF isn't willing to amend its patent policy that far-and most
SDOs still aren't, unfortunately-at the very least we should take our work
seriously. When someone proposes a serious RFC, we should demand that the
water around that RFC be swept for mines-especially *disclosed* patent mines
that any serious sailor would want to understand first.

 

If IETF isn't willing to be that serious, maybe we should recommend that our
work go to standards organizations that do care? As far as my time to
volunteer for a better Internet, there are far better ways to do it than
listening here to proposals that are merely "technical information." At the
very least, separate that into a different list than IETF.org so I know what
to ignore!

 

By the way, many of the same companies and individuals who are involved here
in IETF are also active participants in W3C, OASIS, and the new Open Web
Foundation, all of which organizations pay more attention to patents and the
concept of "open standards" than what IETF seems to be doing here. So let's
not be disingenuous, please. Almost everyone here has previous experience
doing this the right way. 

 

/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