Eran Hammer-Lahav wrote: > When you say IETF RFC, do you also include RFC-Editor track > informational RFCs? There's no consensus requirement for an informational document, In point of fact even the coordination clause in 2026 4.2.3 is not an obstacle to publication... > EHL > > > On 3/10/09 3:08 PM, "Lawrence Rosen" <lrosen@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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 mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf