Michael Dillon wrote:
Some of the time, [...]
the IETF should ask the FSF to collect their thoughts and write an
Internet draft that explains why the proposed plan of action is bad, and why the
IETF should take some other plan of action. That draft can then go to the WG
and get resolved before a new protocol ever reaches RFC status.
Under the rule that "the IETF will make no determination about the
validity of any particular IPR claim" (BCP79), the WG chair(s) would
simply object to discussions about such a draft (apparently no matter
who authored the draft, but sometimes some IETF participants are more
equal than others, so I'm not 100% sure).
If you want to change this rule, e.g. "the IETF may collect evidence
useful to the determination of a particular IPR claim validity and/or
scope" then you were challenged to come up with a detailed proposal.
My point in this discussion was that the IETF processes are increasingly
inefficient because *at the participant level*, under the current rules,
insufficient investigation and analyses are being made. But that's an
incomplete diagnostic of the current situation, and I have no solution
to propose.
--
- Thierry Moreau
CONNOTECH Experts-conseils inc.
9130 Place de Montgolfier
Montreal, Qc
Canada H2M 2A1
Tel.: (514)385-5691
Fax: (514)385-5900
web site: http://www.connotech.com
e-mail: thierry.moreau@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf