ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Consensus Call for draft-housley-tls-authz

2009-03-13 04:27:28

On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 14:35:36 -0700, Mohsen BANAN 
<lists-ietf(_at_)mohsen(_dot_)banan(_dot_)1(_dot_)byname(_dot_)net> said:

  Mohsen> Now in this particular case of a patent
  Mohsen> contaminated protocol extension why would non-RFC
  Mohsen> publication be adequate?

I omitted the important "not" in that sentence.

I meant:

Now in this particular case of a patent
contaminated protocol extension why would not
non-RFC publication be adequate?

I am asking as to why it should be published as an
RFC (any status) when we know to begin with that it
is a patent contaminated specification.

Addressing the RFC Editor:

Has there ever been a case before where a known
patent contaminated specifiaction been published 
as an independent submission?

What are the RFC Editor's values/policies with respect to 
publication of known patent contaminated specifiactions?

What are the minimum rights demanded from the patent holder in such a case?

--
Mohsen BANAN                   http://mohsen.banan.1.byname.net
Neda Communications, Inc       http://www.neda.com
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>