Ted Ts'o wrote: > So you've done the equivalent of submit Windows source code and assume > that it can be ported to a Unix system "left as an exercise to the > reader".... care to give a detailed suggestion about *how* it could > be revised to work with the IETF's more open procedures, and still be > useful in terms of meeting your stated goals? I've made no such assumptions. I've submitted a couple of process documents from W3C that can be modified easily to fit the IETF model. I thought John and Steven would be satisfied with a rough draft. Sort of like Windows might provide a model for a Linux open source program, without the actual code being yet written. :-) Now that I've submitted this draft, I refuse to be told it isn't a draft, although I admit it isn't in the proper format. Any process bigots want to comment on that flaw tonight too? I specifically said that the W3C Patent and Standards Working Group (PSIG) charter (http://www.w3.org/2004/pp/psig/) and *section 7* of the W3C Patent Policy (http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/) would be models for an IETF IPR Advisory Board. Neither of those specific document sections implies anything mandatory about RAND or royalty-free or any other of the political patent battles that divide us. They are merely open process descriptions, just like a draft here ought to be. /Larry > -----Original Message----- > From: Theodore Tso [mailto:tytso@xxxxxxx] > Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 6:25 PM > To: Lawrence Rosen > Cc: ietf@xxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: Proposal to create IETF IPR Advisory Board > > On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 05:40:46PM -0800, Lawrence Rosen wrote: > > 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. > > This model works if you have closed working groups and no one is > allowed to participate without first going through a huge amount of > bureaucratic rigamarole, and where someone can't even poke their head > into a meeting room without being explicitly invited by the chair. It > doesn't work at all in an IETF model which is much more open. > > So you've done the equivalent of submit Windows source code and assume > that it can be ported to a Unix system "left as an exercise to the > reader".... care to give a detailed suggestion about *how* it could > be revised to work with the IETF's more open procedures, and still be > useful in terms of meeting your stated goals? > > - Ted _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf