On 12-May-24 09:28, Rob Sayre wrote:
On Sat, May 11, 2024 at 1:49 PM Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote: Whether implementers or operators are willing to pay for access, or risk going to court, really isn't the IETF's call. As already mentioned, there's an analogy with other IPR issues. We *prefer* unencumbered technology and unencumbered citations, but this can never be 100% achievable. We could draw a finer distinction. There's a sentence in the draft: "This document is not known to create any new vulnerabilities for the Internet." How could it, if we can't read the source material? Why is an Informational RFC not ok?
You mean instead of a BCP? Doesn't really change anything, because it's all a matter of IESG discretion anyway. If you mean an Info RFC paraphasing a paywalled standard, then again considering IEEE 1588, it's >500 pages long. Paraphrasing that in an RFC without any copyright violation would be an unreasonable amount of work. Regards Brian
thanks, Rob
-- last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx
