Could we discuss this over on the IPR WG list, since the draft
responds to a specific request from the WG Chair?
Brian
On 2007-10-30 08:44, Henning Schulzrinne wrote:
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
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf