On 03/30/2007 13:56 PM, John C Klensin wrote: > For whatever it is worth, I think we need to step carefully > around the distinction Paul makes above: there are almost > certainly circumstances in which we should accept a broader > grant of rights conditional on standardization and a narrower > one if the technology is not standardized. I wish the IPR WG > were paying a bit more attention to this sort of issue. This is a WG decision. IPR WG could produce guidance on the subject, but that's all. What are you looking for? On 03/30/2007 14:36 PM, Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote: > If the IPR issues are the sole remaining factor in the IETF's decision > as to whether to make a protocol a standard, then I think it is entirely > reasonable for the IETF to consider an offer which would eliminate or at > least mitigate those issues if the protocol were to become a standard. As Spencer pointed out, text like "If included in a standard" is common. We already do this implicitly. swb _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf