--On Thursday, January 07, 2010 11:46 -0500 Russ Housley
<housley(_at_)vigilsec(_dot_)com> wrote:
...
I do not think that anyone wants the outcome to be yet another
encumbered codec. I think these words are trying to say what
you want, but they are also trying to be realistic.
Does the following text strike a better balance?
Although this preference cannot guarantee that the working
group will produce an unencumbered codec, the working group
shall
follow BCP 79, and adhere to the spirit of BCP 79. The
working
group cannot explicitly rule out the possibility of adapting
encumbered technologies; however, the working group will
try to
avoid encumbered technologies that require royalties.
Yes. Considerable improvement, IMO. Out of deference to
often-stated other concerns, "require royalities" should be
something like "require royalties or explicit per-implementation
or per-user licensing", but I think that is in the spirit of
where you are going.
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf