----- Original Message -----
From: "Pete Resnick" <presnick(_at_)qualcomm(_dot_)com>
To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk(_at_)cloudmark(_dot_)com>
Cc: <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Sent: Friday, January 27, 2012 12:06 AM
On 1/26/12 4:45 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of
Michael Richardson
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 2:36 PM
To: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: Second Last Call:<draft-ietf-sieve-notify-sip-message-
08.txt> (Sieve Notification Mechanism: SIP MESSAGE) to Proposed
Standard
At this point, I do not have a clear idea of what the set of outcomes
could be. I think that they can include:
1) not publishing the document.
2) revising the document to remove/work-around the encumbered work
Yes, certainly those are choices.
3) some legal action to attend to anul the patent (which might or
might not succeed).
I don't think this is something that we can do *as the IETF*. Certainly
others are welcome to pursue that.
4) go ahead and publish things as they are.
I also thought about suggesting a DNP or a standing DISCUSS or something
until the license terms are made more IETF-friendly, unless the WG can find a
way to do equivalent work that is unencumbered, but then the WG might not have
the energy left.
The document could be restricted to Experimental status, but that presumes
the status matters as much as or more than the RFC number. I don't know if
that's true or not in this case.
These are also choices.
Those only cover the document though, and not the offender(s). Still
chewing on an opinion about that.
Other choices that involve both the document and the author(s) are
similar to ones outlined by other folks:
- The author of the patent can be removed from the author list at the
top of the document.
(In effect, this would be the IETF asking the WG chair to fire the
document editor for failure to comply with IETF process. The result
would be the author not getting the recognition as a document editor,
though they would still appear in the Acknowledgments section.)
- Removal of posting rights of the author from the WG or IETF mailing
lists, even perhaps via a PR Action for being "disruptive" of the IETF
process.
Pete
Whether or not this I-D is published as an RFC I see as an issue for the WG. I
do not believe that I, nor many of those outside the WG, have the information on
which to make an informed decision.
On the individual in question, then yes, I believe that he should not be listed
as an author.
In the absence of any further explanatory communication from him, I would also
suspend his posting rights.
Tom Petch
Coincidentally, but not by chance, Adrian and I have been working on a
draft to discuss such sanctions that we are just about to post. I hope
that sparks some ideas as well.
pr
--
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf