On Thu, 8 Sep 2005, william(at)elan.net wrote: > Neverheless if I understand it, it has always been a position of IETF > to consider patented technology as being less preferable then patented > for standardization (ok, it also has a lot to do with kind of licese > patened technology has and if its available to everyone's use or not) > and that in case standardization of certain patented technology is > being considered IETF should look at if alternative to it that is > non-patented is available. The IETF position has gone from what might be described as studious neutrality (ie you may consider things such as licensing terms) to a definite preference for non-encumbrance. (Section 8 of RFC 3979): 8. Evaluating Alternative Technologies in IETF Working Groups In general, IETF working groups prefer technologies with no known IPR claims or, for technologies with claims against them, an offer of royalty-free licensing. I think many people at the IETF have no-IPR preferences, but it wasn't written explicitly as a policy anywhere that I know of prior to RFC3979 > What Dean wrote makes lots of sense to me, so I primarily agree with > him, except for his typical dnsext chair bashing - I'm not sure there > is really a case there that chair is blocking discussion. I do agree Olaf Kolkman (WG co-chair) said: >Message-Id: <2B185012-0627-4A44-990B-F013CF14CA1C@xxxxxxxxxxxx> [...] > "Rat Hole Alert" [*] > > Please stop this discussion. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Doesn't get plainer. --Dean -- Av8 Internet Prepared to pay a premium for better service? www.av8.net faster, more reliable, better service 617 344 9000 _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf