Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: > Institute the policy as you suggest and you have just given the patent > trolls the power to place an indefinite hold on any IETF proposal. I have never suggested placing any kind of hold on any IETF proposal. Propose all you want. Publish the proposal. Try to convince people that it is a good proposal. Establish a WG to design away.... An IPR Disclosure has been filed in accordance with standard IETF procedure. What I've suggested is due diligence to determine the implications of that disclosure. Only THEN is publication as an IETF RFC justified. Experimental or not, industry standard or not, an IETF RFC encourages companies to implement and use the technology, and that may be patent infringement. Or it may be a bogus IPR disclosure that intelligent people could decide to ignore. I am certainly not giving patent trolls any more power than they deserve. In fact, I hope to dispose of this particular TLS patent troll once we get a small group of patent attorneys to analyze the IPR disclosure like professionals do it. Just like W3C does it. They don't give patent trolls power either. /Larry > -----Original Message----- > From: Hallam-Baker, Phillip [mailto:pbaker@xxxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2009 1:24 PM > To: lrosen@xxxxxxxxxxxx; Paul Hoffman; ietf@xxxxxxxx > Subject: RE: Consensus Call for draft-housley-tls-authz > > Institute the policy as you suggest and you have just given the patent > trolls the power to place an indefinite hold on any IETF proposal. > > So instead of extorting payment for exercise of the claims they hold the > standard hostage. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On > > Behalf Of Lawrence Rosen > > Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2009 3:28 PM > > To: 'Paul Hoffman'; ietf@xxxxxxxx > > Subject: RE: Consensus Call for draft-housley-tls-authz > > > > Lawrence Rosen wrote: > > > >If we use different terminology to identify this IETF RFC, > > how does > > > >that > > > change anything? > > > > Paul Hoffman replied: > > > Because you earlier complained about IETF standards having known > > > patent issues. Now we are talking about experimental protocols that > > > are not standards. > > > > And I am saying that it doesn't make a bit of difference > > legally. If you infringe for experimental reasons, that is > > still infringement. > > > > I don't think we should publish under the IETF imprimatur if there are > > *unresolved* known patent issues about which ignorant and > > cautious people continue to speculate blindly. Why should any > > of us waste time and money on IETF and commercial and FOSS > > "experiments" if they may cost us too much money downstream? > > > > Its authors are free to publish draft-housley-tls-authz > > already. Google is free to index that document already. Why > > do you insist upon granting it an IETF RFC status without > > first deciding if the disclosed patent claims are likely bogus? > > > > /Larry > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Paul Hoffman [mailto:paul.hoffman@xxxxxxxx] > > > Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2009 10:31 AM > > > To: lrosen@xxxxxxxxxxxx; ietf@xxxxxxxx > > > Subject: RE: Consensus Call for draft-housley-tls-authz > > > > > > At 10:22 AM -0700 3/10/09, Lawrence Rosen wrote: > > > >If we use different terminology to identify this IETF RFC, > > how does > > > >that > > > change anything? > > > > > > Because you earlier complained about IETF standards having known > > > patent issues. Now we are talking about experimental protocols that > > > are not standards. > > > > > > --Paul Hoffman, Director > > > --VPN Consortium > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Ietf mailing list > > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > > _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf