|
Stephan Wenger wrote: Please note that I didn’t
make a proposal. I can live quite well with a misalignment of IETF
terminology and reality as perceived outside the IETF. So can the
industry, I think. What I was commenting on is that it does not make
sense to me to re-iterate the mantra of “Experimental RFCs not being
standards”, when there is ample evidence that a large percentage of the
outside world views this differently. Hi Stephan, The "misalignment of IETF terminology
and reality" continues to bother me. I hope you don't expect the FOSS part
of our software industry to live with that misalignment just because big
companies can afford to evaluate patent risks in private. Since we are talking about a specific patent
disclosure here and not some abstract terminology, then *experimental* status for
draft-housley-tls-authz makes not one tiny bit of legal difference. Patents
deal with *use* and don't care
about the purpose. IETF contributors can write about TLS all we want, and maybe
even draft software to implement that proposed RFC, but the moment we execute code
on a computer we would potentially infringe. Experiment or for actual
commercial purposes, it would still be an infringement. We could be liable
potentially for years' worth of damages. We could yet be faced with an
injunction that would make our standardization and implementation efforts
utterly useless. Isn't that the "reality"? If we
use different terminology to identify this IETF RFC, how does that change
anything? Not that we have any good reason to
believe that the disclosed patent claims will be issued for real; this is
merely a patent application, and we're all still speculating randomly about
future risks. Best regards, /Larry |
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf