Frank Ellermann <nobody at xyzzy.claranet.de> writes:
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."
I like this text. It should be clarified that 'remove from standards
track' actually means re-labeling it as information (or historical?).
That avoids people thinking that some RFCs will be physically removed.
I suppose the process for this would be to for someone to notice the
situation, send a request to the IESG, the IESG will last call the
proposal to move a particular standard to informational, and will act
depending on the last call comments received.
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).
Right.
/Simon
_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wg at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg