I admit to finding the discussion about Draft standards a bit
theoretical, given how few RFCs ever make it there. As a rough estimate,
http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfcxx00.html#Draft
shows a rate of 20 out of a 1000.
On Oct 29, 2007, at 3:20 PM, James M. Polk wrote:
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
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf