Paul,
Paul Vixie wrote: ...
i don't agree that it shouldn't be allowed to be an rfc. i do think the iesg/iab should think carefully about making something a proposed standard or draft standard or full standard without having first negotiated royalty-free use rights on behalf of all future implementors, as scrocker did with jbezos for the RSADSI IPR that went into early dnssec.
I don't think we can require the IESG to negotiate anything. There are all kinds of legal issues there. To my knowledge, both WGs and the IESG do think carefully about this, but often conclude that the default IETF conditions (RAND) are realistic and acceptable. The IETF exists to make the Internet work better, not to exclusively support the open source movement. [This doesn't mean that I am against RF or OSS - it means I want the IETF to continue to live in the real world, where patents and royalties continue to exist alongside OSS.]
but as an informational or experimental rfc, the process ought to be open to any IPR no matter how strongly encumbered so long as it's disclosed.
Of course.
Brian
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf