Re: A priori IPR choices [Re: Third Last Call:draft-housley-tls-authz-extns]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 22 Oct 2007 at 17:46 -0400, Sam Hartman allegedly wrote:
> * Phil's proposal has been shot down prematurely in my opinion.  I
>   agree that his current version would not fly.  However I do think
>   there are working groups that could make conclusions about their
>   patent policies and for which doing so would have helped the
>   effort a lot.

Working Groups have the freedom to do that if they wish.  I don't want
a simplistic edict from on high that all working groups must do so.
Interactions between issues, technical and otherwise, are way too
varied and potentially complicated for such shallow rule-making.

> Working through draft-housley-tls-authz-extns gave me a personal
> significant lack of confidence in our patent policies and whether
> they meet our goals and objectives.  I also wonder whether our goals
> and objectives may have shifted somewhat since they were written.
> However I'm definitely uncomfortable with relying on our existing
> documents in any real dispute.

I think the problem is that because we have a wide range of opinion
and desired outcome, we cannot create simple rules, which means the
difficult cases take a lot of discussion.  I think that's important to
preserve, in order to support the possibility of new outcomes.

swb

_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]