At 8:42 AM -0700 10/19/07, Paul Hoffman wrote: >>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. > >"Early on" is much different than "when the WG is formed". It is reasonable to talk about IPR desired *on a particular technology* when that technology begins to be discussed in the WG. I think this is a critical point. The IETF has historically decided whether to deal with licenses when it is faced with a specific technology. That has the real advantage that the contributors can consider the trade-offs (way X is known to be encumbered, with a license required; way Y is not known to be encumbered, but involves new code paths that will likely be slower). For some working groups, we start out with a technology under consideration and "early on in discussion of a technology" and "when the working group starts" may be pretty similar from the point of view of considering that trade-off. For other working groups (DNSEXT is one example, DHC is another), the long-lived nature of their charters and the continual emergence of newly related technologies means that "early on in discussion of a technology" may be years later than "when the working group starts". Speaking personally, I believe the ability to consider that trade-off is a very good thing, and I would hate to lose it. I also think that making that decision in the working group is the best way, despite it being very messy in many cases, because we get the strongest participation from the community of developers and deployers there. regards, Ted _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf