Re: IPR at IETF 54

[Robert Elz <kre at munnari.OZ.AU>]

    Date:        Fri, 31 May 2002 09:03:43 -0400
    From:        Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu
    Message-ID:  <200205311303.g4VD3hl0003054 at turing-police.cc.vt.edu>

  | OK.. I'll bite - at what point should a not-yet-full standard expire to
  | historic?

Pretty quickly.   What the max period at DS should be I'm not sure, but
certainly no more than 2 years.

The point not being to shed lots of stuff necessarily of course, but
to put more pressure on all of us to take the comparatively small
steps needed to move the docs up the chain.   Compared with the work
needed to get something to PS state, the rest of it isn't difficult
really.

  | And the flip side - we've moved an amazingly SMALL number of documents
  | to Full Standard, and only when we *think* we *fully* understand things.

That's the problem.   Or it is with the IPR issues.   It is determining whether
we can make that final step (widespread deployment is what is required,
expecting full understanding of almost anything is naïve) that actally
decides whether or not the IPR rights holder is being reasonable or not.

That's what we really need to figure out relatively quickly - we can't
wait 10 years with docs in PS (and a lesser number DS) state with everyone
assuming they are *the* standard - then we haven't properly tested any
IPR problems that might exist.

  | One of the *GOOD* things about protocols living at DS is that you can
  | convince vendors to start supporting the *new* DS rather than the *old* one.

Yes, that's true - but it would be even easier if the new one were a
full standard (even if the old one was too).

kre