Steven Bellovin wrote: > All that said, the above is my strawman that I've just torched. This > is why we need a draft -- until we have one, we won't know if it's a > plausible, useful idea or not. In fact, a metadraft -- one that simply > set out the questions that a concrete proposal should address -- would > be a worthwhile contribution in its own regard. In honor of open source, I'm glad to submit someone else's work as my first draft: http://www.w3.org/2004/pp/psig/. This is an effective working model. I'm sure it would have to be revised to fit IETF's more democratic operations. For a detailed description, see http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/. In particular see section 7. [This is a document I helped a little bit to write, several years ago.] Kudos to our friends in W3C for doing this well. /Larry Lawrence Rosen Rosenlaw & Einschlag, a technology law firm (www.rosenlaw.com) 3001 King Ranch Road, Ukiah, CA 95482 707-485-1242 * cell: 707-478-8932 * fax: 707-485-1243 Skype: LawrenceRosen _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf