Re: recourse if our rules are violated?

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

Harald Alvestrand wrote:

> 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....

Yes, I automatically read "maybe not" whenever I see a MAY.  But the
"implementor" in this case is the IESG (or after an appeal the IAB),
they'd ask for legal advise wrt "identified 'patented' technology" -
just somebody filing an IPR disclosure isn't a proper identification.

I think this OPTION doesn't exist today, the only way to get rid of
the problematic standard would be another PS obsoleting it, and/or a
move to "historic".  No chance for a move to "info" or "experimental"
yet (AFAICT).  With the MAY anything goes, nothing's wrong with an
"info" RFC explaining patented stuff.

Frank (MD5 and BOCU-1 fan)



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