On Mon, 5 Nov 2007 08:44:33 -0800 "Lawrence Rosen" <lrosen@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Harald Alvestrand wrote: > > The outcomes I see possible of such a discussion are: > <snip> > > I can't be in Vancouver for this meeting. Probably few of the others > who have been vocal on these issues on these email lists can be in > Vancouver either. > > I hope no decisions will be arrived at in what will probably be an > unrepresentative arena. In-person meetings are an ineffective and > expensive way to decide things in the Internet age. In any event, > these email lists have elicited more comments than any meeting in > Vancouver could properly address. How do we intend to move toward > consensus? Per 2418, of course the mailing list decision is the one that counts. OTOH -- and as is well-understood -- it's often much harder to assess consensus over the net than in person. (It's also harder to reach consensus, in many cases, since email tends to be a polarizing medium, prone to flames and other forms of intemperate behavior.) If you have any suggestions for how to deal with these problems -- and they are problems -- I think the IETF would be very interested in hearing them. (And because I realize that this statement can be misinterpreted, given the lack of tone of voice and body language on a mailing list, let me stress that I'm being 100% serious, complimentary, etc.) > > The alternative to a re-charter is for this complaint to be brought > up again and again, every time someone has the audacity to recommend > an IETF specification that is encumbered so to prevent FOSS > implementations. Is that preferable? > I'm no longer an AD; if I were, my attitude would be simple: the IETF has decided, as a group, that patented technology is acceptable. There's no point to reopening the question every individual document. Were this a legal matter, I'd cry "stare decisis". I'm not saying you shouldn't keep pushing, but if the IESG were to ignore a consensus to follow the current policy it would be challenged and rightly so. (The substantive issue on the document currently being discussed is not the fact of the patent -- under current policy, that's acceptable -- but rather the timing of the disclosure.) The question to discuss now is whether enough has changed since the last consensus call on this topic, in March-April 2003, that it pays to reopen the rechartering question. I personally don't think so, but I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise. --Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf