Re: recourse if our rules are violated?

[Harald Alvestrand <harald at alvestrand.no>]

Frank Ellermann wrote:
> 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).
>   
Remember that the 2119 uppercase MAY is logically equivalent to MAY 
NOT..... it means that an implementor may choose to do this, or may 
choose to not do it....

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