There is a real problem with people thinking that RFC == Free License. We need to educate people and maybe consider new ways to get that message out. But it has nothing to do with the status of the document. The purpose of RFCs is in the *name*: Request For Comments. How much more clear can you get? It is a memo publication channel for documents related to internet technologies. It is a way for people to communicate ideas and preserve them. Standards are just a small part of it.
There is no connection between the document status (standard, info, experimental, etc.) to its IPR status. Yes, most standards tend to be free, but that is still a document by document distinction. And to argue that it is different elsewhere is wrong. For example, OASIS has plenty of standards that are not free. I am willing to bet that there are more fee-based licensed standards in the world than free ones. You have to understand the wide range of topics discussed in the IETF and the fact that a lot of it might be of no consequences to open source developers. It is not the job of the IETF to fight against the patent system. What we need to make sure is that the communities creating standards ensure that their expected audience can implement it.
If you don’t understand how something works, saying its broken is the lazy way out. Should we do a better job educating people about the IPR consequences of using RFCs? Of course! Should we make it harder for encumbered tech to make it into standards? Hell yeah! But we need to solve the problem where it belongs.
As for TSG’s comments: show me an organization this size that doesn’t have people who worry more about their ass than the community they are in. You comment makes as much sense as saying that you would not vote for president because politics is dirty and all about self promotion. Grow up.
EHL
On 3/11/09 3:54 PM, "TSG" <tglassey@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Lawrence Rosen wrote:
Because Larry - many of those here owe their ongoing $$$ livelihood to
the lie the IETF has become. And so what you are suggesting is
increasing the rolls of the unemployed by adding these individuals who's
whole existence is the IETF. Its also these people in my opinion that
make the IETF the laughingstock its become as you so rights notice that
RFC's and the process for creating standards has degraded into a model
where there really is no standard.
Just my two cents
Todd Glassey
>
> The recent threads about draft-housley-tls-authz have taught me
> something I didn't know about IETF, and I don't like what I've learned.
>
> There are, it appears, many types of IETF RFCs, some which are
> intended to be called "Internet standards" and others which bear other
> embedded labels and descriptions in their boilerplate text that are
> merely "experimental" or "informational" or perhaps simply "proposed
> standard". One contributor here described the RFC series as "a
> repository of technical information [that] will be around when I am no
> longer around."
>
> The world is now full of standards organizations that treat their
> works as more significant than merely "technical information." Why do
> we need IETF for that purpose? If all we need is a repository of
> technical information, let's just ask Google and Yahoo to build it for
> us. Maybe our Internet standards should instead be created in an
> organized body that pays serious attention to the ability of the wide
> world to implement those standards without patent encumbrances.
>
> But even if IETF isn't willing to amend its patent policy that far—and
> most SDOs still aren't, unfortunately—at the very least we should take
> our work seriously. When someone proposes a serious RFC, we should
> demand that the water around that RFC be swept for mines—especially
> **disclosed** patent mines that any serious sailor would want to
> understand first.
>
> If IETF isn't willing to be that serious, maybe we should recommend
> that our work go to standards organizations that do care? As far as my
> time to volunteer for a better Internet, there are far better ways to
> do it than listening here to proposals that are merely "technical
> information." At the very least, separate that into a different list
> than IETF.org so I know what to ignore!
>
> By the way, many of the same companies and individuals who are
> involved here in IETF are also active participants in W3C, OASIS, and
> the new Open Web Foundation, all of which organizations pay more
> attention to patents and the concept of "open standards" than what
> IETF seems to be doing here. So let's not be disingenuous, please.
> Almost everyone here has previous experience doing this the right way.
>
> /Larry
>
> Lawrence Rosen
>
> Rosenlaw & Einschlag, a technology law firm (www.rosenlaw.com
> <http://www.rosenlaw.com>)
>
> 3001 King Ranch Road, Ukiah, CA 95482
>
> 707-485-1242 * cell: 707-478-8932 * fax: 707-485-1243
>
> Skype: LawrenceRosen
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@xxxxxxxx
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf