Re: recourse if our rules are violated?

[Frank Ellermann <nobody at xyzzy.claranet.de>]

Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:

>> How about a default rule "remove RFC from standards track" that
>> can be overruled by an IETF consensus ?

> Remember that two of the possible kinds of IPR disclosures are:

> - "oops, we forgot to tell you about this patent, here's the license that
> clearly and unambiguously gives you permission to use it in any way you
> want to"

> - "oops, we forgot to tell you about this patent, here's a pile of legal
> mutterings that tell you absolutely nothing and will leave you wondering
> about the ability to use the technology for the next 20 years"

> and every shade in between.
> I don't like "default" rules.

If you don't like the SHOULD we can try a MAY without IETF consensus:

"An approved standards track RFC identified to specify 'patented'
 technology after its approval, where contributors neglected their
 duties to disclose IPR under BCP 79, MAY be removed from standards
 track, if there's no IETF consensus for a different approach."

There is already a "default" rule how to get rid of cruft, but it's
not appropriate for such submarine patents, and getting a consensus
to demote the RFC might be tricky.  With an explicit MAY the IETF
consensus has to be 'no, we want to keep this RFC anyway' to avoid
the demotion, and picking this "option" (MAY) would be limited to
the IESG (or the outcome of an appeal).

Of course a statement in this direction needs to be more verbose
than the raw idea stated above.  I don't think that the "certified
troll" BCP can help with patent trolls / issues.

Frank
-- 
MARID: once bitten, twice shy



_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wg at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg