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