>>>>> "Scott" == Scott Brim <swb@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
Scott> 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.
Scott> Working Groups have the freedom to do that if they wish. I
Scott> don't want a simplistic edict from on high that all working
Scott> groups must do so. Interactions between issues, technical
Scott> and otherwise, are way too varied and potentially
Scott> complicated for such shallow rule-making.
I agree that forcing working groups to make a decision at the
beginning would be bad. I think the you must decide part of Phil's
proposal is one of the things that would have to go. Phil may argue
that's the only value his proposal has; I disagree.
>> 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.
Scott> I think the problem is that because we have a wide range of
Scott> opinion and desired outcome, we cannot create simple rules,
Scott> which means the difficult cases take a lot of discussion.
Scott> I think that's important to preserve, in order to support
Scott> the possibility of new outcomes.
My lack of confidence had more to do with doubting that our policies
would do what we want in court, concerns that there are ambiguities,
lack of clarity and that sort of thing than that they allowed for
discussion.
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf