Re: A priori IPR choices [Re: Third Last Call:draft-housley-tls-authz-extns]

[Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman at vpnc.org>]

At 10:46 AM +0200 10/19/07, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman at vpnc.org> writes:
>
> >  At 4:10 PM -0700 10/18/07, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
> > > Isn't it preferable to get into early battles over IP rules--and make sure
> > > those rules are clear to WG participants--before we have wasted our time and
> > > resources developing specifications that half the world (or more) can't
> > > implement?
> >
> >  I don't know which of the IETF WGs you have been involved with, but
> >  that hasn't been the case for any of the ones I have dealt with. Could
> >  you give an example of an WG in which this would have been preferable?
>
> The DNSEXT WG is a good example where patented technology has been
> presented and time has been spent on discussing what to do with it.
> Some time later the working group drafted a requirements document (RFC
> 4986) which contained the following requirement '5.2.  No Known
> Intellectual Property Encumbrance'.

This is a good example of how Lawrence's proposal would not have 
worked. The technology you are talking about came up years after the 
WG was formed.

> The inclination to standardize only non-patented technology in DNSEXT is
> fairly strong.  If the WG had made the policy explicit early on, the
> discussions related to the patented ideas could have been more easily
> dismissed.  Time could be spent on more productive work.

"Early on" is much different than "when the WG is formed". It is 
reasonable to talk about IPR desired *on a particular technology* 
when that technology begins to be discussed in the WG.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf