On Wed, 13 Aug 2008, Simon Josefsson wrote: > Harald Alvestrand <harald@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > Simon Josefsson wrote: > >> Harald Alvestrand <harald@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> > >> > >> At least one of the removed patent licenses promises to make available > >> patent licenses on fair, reasonable, reciprocal and non-discriminatory > >> terms. It seems unfortunate that IETF allows organizations to file such > >> claims and permits them be removed later, presumably when the > >> organization change their minds. > > Agreed in principle. > > > > On the other hand (trying to play devil's advocate), if the promise > > was made by someone in the organization that did not have authority to > > commit the organization to that statement, I could see why the > > responsible persons for that organization would want the original > > statement made invisible, so as to not have to eternally go around and > > explain the situation..... Removal by the IETF seems to be agreement to release the promisor from the agreement. The IETF shouldn't do this since the agreement was a condition on which the WG made its decision. In the case that the organization doesn't have authority to make the promise, it shouldn't make false promises and is responsible for whatever consequences befall it as a result. These consequences are not the concern of the IETF. All the IETF should do is allow the company to update the disclosures to state that it can't honor the commitment it made previously. This is consistent with 'record is history' view. > What if the request to remove the disclosure was filed by someone who > isn't authorized to do it? Good point. > If the IETF removes patent disclosures, I believe the IETF will find > itself in the position of evaluating the _correctness_ of patent related > claims. This seems like the wrong approach. > > One way to mitigate your problem without getting into evaluating > correctness or removing disclosures would be to collect all patent > disclosures updates on the same page as the original patent disclosure, > and sort the entries in reverse calendar order. Then anyone can add > note that a disclosure below was filed without authority. That > disclosure can be evaluated for correctness the same way that other > disclosures can be evaluated. Removing disclosures makes it impossible > for IETF participants to evaluate the contents for themselves. This is how I thought it worked now, perhaps with the exception of sorting by date. I think they are sorted by number (or maybe this is just the natural order), and higher numbers generally have later dates. -- Av8 Internet Prepared to pay a premium for better service? www.av8.net faster, more reliable, better service 617 344 9000 _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf