Re: Effective vs intended handling of patent encumbrance in IETF wg and IESG

[Scott W Brim <sbrim at cisco.com>]

If I understand correctly, you are saying that a Working Group should
take technical issues into account just as much as it takes IPR
encumbrance into account.  Is that right?

swb

On 06/05/2007 09:24 AM, Thierry Moreau allegedly wrote:
> For your information:
> 
> In draft-ietf-dnsext-rollover-requirements, an IETF wg effectively made
> an a-priori decision to avoid the consideration of an IPR encumbered
> alternative; the problem area being DNSSEC trust anchor key management.
> I spare you the details of how the wg came to this decision, and how it
> relates to the a-priori rejected alternative.
> 
> Now that the IESG accepted the above draft for publication as an RFC, it
> becomes a procedural precedent for attempts to expeditiously restrict
> IETF activities to IPR unencumbered alternatives.
> 
> Conversely, it reinforces the economic incentive for medium and large
> organizations to isolate the individuals participating in the IETF
> activities from the patent application management process.
> 
> Also, the above draft publication decision, in a context where the
> problem area is still lacking a solution with a reasonable explicit
> security model, is an empirical observation of the IETF strong
> preference for "ignoring the technology" (instead of "ignoring the IPR")
> when a tradeoff has to be made. Inescapably then, the aggregate scope
> and field of application of IETF protocols is deemed to shrink as
> innovation enhances the networking technology.
> 
> Please note that I am not well aware of the detailed procedural and
> institutional arrangements that implement RFC3979, before the appeal
> process can correct deviations. While I was participating in the above
> matter, I chose not to rely on the appeal process, perhaps because it
> wasn't clear to me how things should have gone in the first place.
> 
> P.S. Since even RFC3979 itself is absent from the IETF ipr wg charter;
> perhaps the above is totally off-topic.
> 
> Regards,
> 

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