http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-carpenter-ipr-patent-frswds-00.txt
offers this text as a modification to RFC 2026:
A specification from which at least two independent and interoperable
implementations from different code bases have been developed, of
which at least one is available as free software, and for which
sufficient successful operational experience has been obtained,
may be elevated to the "Draft Standard" level.
I oppose this text in any IETF document because it is counter to
vendor implementations (*any* vendor implementations) to achieve
Draft Standard status of a document, and that's bad for the IETF.
For example, take two vendors: Vendor-A and Vendor-B.
One of the vendor's has legitimate IPR claims on a PS RFC, the other
either has a license on that IPR from the inventing vendor, or has
implemented it under the IPR claim's royalty-free IPR statement (just
as some IPR has in its claim into the IETF).
Some PS RFCs are either very little used or very complicated, meaning
they aren't very popular (to the Open Source community) or cost to
much (time/money) to develop. So unless someone decides to do the
work anyway (which doesn't make sense to require) - the suggested
text above prevents both Vendor-A's and Vendor-B's implementations
from being considered for elevation of this PS RFC to DS RFC
*because* they (for some crazy reason) want to charge money for the
products where this implementation can be utilized.
BTW - isn't charging money for products how vendor's stay in business?
The IETF preventing vendors from making money in order for the IETF
to consider progressing a PS RFC to DS RFC is completely
counterintuitive and will reduce vendor participation in the
IETF. As much as some might applaud that result, it will mean either
the demise of the IETF (without sponsors and vendor participants
attending meetings to pay the bills), or that everything is just fine
as a PS - which makes the suggested text above completely useless.
James
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf