Hi, Phil,
I'm not seeing anything in your proposal that requires changes to the IPR
procedures in IETF - are you?
I AM seeing something in your proposal that could reasonably be adopted by
specific working groups, and I AM seeing something that might reasonably be
developed into an Informational RFC(*) (heck, maybe even an ION) saying
"some IETF participants worry about X, so we're explicitly pointing out that
IETF working groups can do Y to reduce the chances of X happening, and
here's how to do Y".
If there's any gap between the tools we have and what you're suggesting,
it's your wish to have this constraint IN THE WORKING GROUP CHARTER. Is that
critical? and if so, is there any OTHER way to obtain WG consensus and
document it, so the WG doesn't have to keep defending the choice?
I AM thinking that including IPR constraints in the charter would set off
IESG review for charter changes if the WG changes its mind - I'm not sure
that's helpful, and it's certainly not required today.
Thanks,
Spencer
(*) The IPR working group has developed Informational RFCs offered as
guidance in the past - I'm sure Phil knows about
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3669.txt, but others may not have noticed it.
From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Theodore Tso" <tytso@xxxxxxx>; "Norbert Bollow" <nb@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <ietf@xxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, October 26, 2007 9:51 AM
Subject: RE: A priori IPR choices
The reason I would like to be able to put a RANDZ requirement in a WG
charter is that there are certain areas where I would like to see a working
group form, where there is a set of clearly unencumbered technology that can
be used and alternative technology that is owned by a proprietary concern.
I want a WG to be able to make it clear to such rights holders from the
outset that their technology is going to be stripped from the documents if
they fail to deliver acceptable access terms before the start of last call.
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf