"Lawrence Rosen" <lrosen@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Scott Brim responded: >> I'm with Ted ... let's take this over to ipr-wg. > > I respectfully disagree with Steven Bellovin and Scott Brim, and ask that we > NOT turn this issue back to the IPR-WG unless and until its charter is > revised to allow it to *completely revise* IETF's IPR policies with respect > to patents. I agree. The current IPR WG charter contains: The WG has also discussed the possibility of changing the IETF's patent policy, but did not detect a consensus for doing so. Moving this discussion to the IPR WG list would be outside of the WG's charter, and discussions would likely be killed. I support re-chartering of the IPR WG to discuss a IETF-wide patent policy. > However it has to be done, I ask that IETF not let that burial happen again. > Let's first charter the IPR-WG to completely reconsider the IETF patent > policy in light of new software industry expectations, and so that we get > rid of the inadequate RAND (and even non-RAND) IETF IPR policies that > currently exist. Hear, hear. I believe a significant part of the IETF community would agree with Paul Vixie that something similar to what the IEEE have would be very useful for the IETF community as well. When I read the article that was linked, I had the same reaction as Vixie. The best would be if all standards track documents were published under a similar policy as the IEEE appear to have: any patent holders must promise not to sue over implementation. Another approach that would not require fundamental changes in the IETF would be to introduce a new classification of standards: one class where the IETF applies a policy similar to the IEEE and one class where the policy is not applied, and it would permit publishing of patent-encumbered technologies. /Simon _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf