Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@xxxxxxxx> writes: > At 4:10 PM -0700 10/18/07, Lawrence Rosen wrote: >>Isn't it preferable to get into early battles over IP rules--and make sure >>those rules are clear to WG participants--before we have wasted our time and >>resources developing specifications that half the world (or more) can't >>implement? > > I don't know which of the IETF WGs you have been involved with, but > that hasn't been the case for any of the ones I have dealt with. Could > you give an example of an WG in which this would have been preferable? The DNSEXT WG is a good example where patented technology has been presented and time has been spent on discussing what to do with it. Some time later the working group drafted a requirements document (RFC 4986) which contained the following requirement '5.2. No Known Intellectual Property Encumbrance'. The inclination to standardize only non-patented technology in DNSEXT is fairly strong. If the WG had made the policy explicit early on, the discussions related to the patented ideas could have been more easily dismissed. Time could be spent on more productive work. I think there are other examples, e.g., SRP in SASL WG. >>Has anyone ever suggested that we inhibit "free discussion of initial >>ideas"? Please don't raise silly arguments like that. > > It is not a silly argument. Yes, there are a few engineers in the IETF > who like to play armchair lawyer and would love to spend the initial > time of WG formation pontificating about IPR, but they are in the > small minority. Such a discussion would be of no interest to the folks > who want to do good technical work. In today's world you can't do good technical work on a commercial basis without considering patents. /Simon _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf