John Klensin wrote: > If you want to pursue this further, I think it would be helpful > if you started supplying arguments that we haven't heard, > repeatedly, before. Neither repeating those arguments, nor > making the assumption that the IETF agrees with your goals and > priorities, seems to be causing progress in this area. What it > does accomplish is to get people to stop reading threads on this > subject, which further lowers the odds of getting IETF consensus > on a change in position. John and others, I have never made my proposal on ietf@xxxxxxxx before. Indeed, I only started contributing on this list recently. I'm pleased that YOU have heard my arguments before in other venues, but there's no reason to assume that others here have done so. I don't assume that IETF agrees with my goals or priorities, nor perhaps do you have any reason to assume that the broader IETF community agrees with you. I made my suggestion here to re-charter the IPR-WG after lurking on the list for long enough to understand (I hope) the issues that this list considers and the cultural environment in which those considerations occur, and long after I became convinced that at least some of the people participating on the much narrower IPR-WG list were culturally and philosophically unwilling to listen to *any* arguments that IETF patent policy should be clarified or changed. Your reference to the older and more stubbornly traditional ISO, IEC and IEEE merely reminds me of important counter-examples, W3C and OASIS. Each standards organization needs to articulate its patent policy in light of its own mission and culture. IETF is a world-wide organization of volunteers that standardizes much of the Internet. This is an *open* Internet, available to all. Encumbering it with non-free patents is a danger that W3C and OASIS have addressed. I suggest that IETF should address it too! So please stand back a bit, John, and let the arguments on all sides be fairly raised and rebutted before the participants on this list. Let's see if consensus does arise here. Please don't assume, as I don't assume, that everyone who has an opinion has already spoken up. I hope that others here will speak up. *************** Once again, specifically what I request is that we charter the IETF IPR-WG to propose policies and procedures, consistent with the worldwide mission of IETF, which will result in IETF specifications unencumbered by restrictive, non-free patents. *************** > -----Original Message----- > From: John C Klensin [mailto:john-ietf@xxxxxxx] > Sent: Monday, October 22, 2007 11:15 AM > To: lrosen@xxxxxxxxxxxx; ietf@xxxxxxxx > Subject: RE: A priori IPR choices [Re: Third Last Call:draft-housley-tls- > authz-extns] > > > > --On Saturday, 20 October, 2007 19:15 -0700 Lawrence Rosen > <lrosen@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > >... > > But we're talking here about IETF standards, specifications > > that are prepared cooperatively and for free by talented > > individuals, companies and countries around the world. These > > specifications are intended for implementation everywhere to > > facilitate communications among us all. > >... > > Larry, with all due respect, if you substitute "ISO/IEC JTC1" or > "IEEE" (at least in the computer and communications areas for > both) in the above statements, they will still be true. The > IETF is not particularly special in this regard. > > To me, the question is simply one of whether trying to insist on > an unencumbered regime (whether for technical, economic, or > moral/ religious reasons) is important enough to justify > rejecting, a priori, any encumbered technology. The IETF has > decided, repeatedly, that the answer is "no" and "we want to > look at these things on a case-by-case basis and evaluate the > tradeoffs". While the part that follows the "no" differs, that > is the same conclusion reached by ISO, IEC, IEEE, and others. > > If you want to pursue this further, I think it would be helpful > if you started supplying arguments that we haven't heard, > repeatedly, before. Neither repeating those arguments, nor > making the assumption that the IETF agrees with your goals and > priorities, seems to be causing progress in this area. What it > does accomplish is to get people to stop reading threads on this > subject, which further lowers the odds of getting IETF consensus > on a change in position. > > Just my opinion, of course. > john _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf