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

[Lucy Lynch <llynch at civil-tongue.net>]

On Fri, 8 Jun 2007, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

> On 2007-06-05 15:24, Thierry Moreau 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.
>
> Our rules have allowed WGs to choose to favor unencumbered solutions
> for many years. You'd have to be much more specific about what
> you mean by 'a priori' to explain why you think this is a precedent.

a bit of catch up for those who aren't following DNSSEC

http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsop/current/msg05465.html
 https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/ipr_detail_show.cgi?&ipr_id=856
 http://www.connotech.com/optin_for_dnssec.pdf
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsop/current/msg05527.html

>      Brian
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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