Re: recourse if our rules are violated?

[Brian E Carpenter <brc at zurich.ibm.com>]

On 2007-04-12 15:54, Frank Ellermann wrote:
...

> > > I believe this is well within the IESG's power under
> > > RFC 2026.
>
> Which part do you have in mind ?  I see the "move to
> historic" in 6.2 and 6.4.  For the IPR rule violation
> discussed here "historic" could be a misnomer.  The
> patented technology is not necessarily "moribund", it's
> only not good enough for standards track.

Section 4.2:
   A specification may have been superseded by a more recent
   Internet Standard, or have otherwise fallen into disuse or disfavor.
----------------------------------------^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
   Specifications that are not on the standards track are labeled with
   one of three "off-track" maturity levels:  "Experimental",
   "Informational", or "Historic".  The documents bearing these labels
   are not Internet Standards in any sense.

It's clear to me that this covers the case of an unknown and
undesirable IPR encumbrance.

Section 6.1:
   A "standards action" -- entering a particular specification into,
   advancing it within, or removing it from, the standards track -- must
   be approved by the IESG.

So removing a document from the standards track is explicitly a power
of the IESG, and subject to the usual appeals process if needed.

    Brian


> > What is special here is the particular reason for
> > invoking that process.  If you want to add a sentence,
> > I would just note that one possible reason for a major
> > revision or replacement of a standards track document
> > would be discovery of new IPR claims against it.
>
> If you think that "move to historic" is enough, yes.
>
> Frank
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ipr-wg mailing list
> Ipr-wg at ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

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