> -----Original Message----- > From: Mohsen BANAN [mailto:lists-ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 6:01 PM > > >>>>> On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 17:31:27 -0700, Eran Hammer-Lahav > <eran@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> said: > > Eran> There is no connection between the document status (standard, > info, > Eran> experimental, etc.) to its IPR status. > > You are dead wrong. > > See Section 10.3.2 of RFC-2026. If you are going to use strong language, you should at least make sure you are not contradicting yourself. There is no connection between the document status to its IPR status. Any of the document types can have any IPR status. The only thing the section you referenced says in relation to this discussion is that if a disclosure is made, the IETF has to attempt to obtain a RAND license and either way, has to document the result of this effort. > Note that after 13 years > RFC-2026 -- The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3 > October 1996 > is still the latest. > > In other words, despite knowing about severe > process problems nothing has been done for 13 years. > > As I said before, the real problem is that even > RFC-2026 is mostly imaginary and that IETF has > become a cult dominated by interests of > proprietary big business. As we are seeing. My work obtaining licenses for open community specs and my role in the Open Web Foundation is all based on the view that standards should be free and unencumbered. There is nothing to prevent working groups from rejecting encumbered contribution or technology by consensus. Since the IETF process is completely open, it is easy for a committed community to make sure the right thing is done. In addition, while the IETF process has indeed failed to catch-up with the time, the community around it is getting pretty sophisticated. The recent work of the FSF (no matter how misguided) is proof that the "little guy" still has a voice here. The entire IETF process depends on community consensus. There is no reason to significantly alter the culture and openness of this organization for something that can be accomplished via other means. Big companies with deep pockets will find new avenues for their work if they don't like the way things are going on. There are many known examples of work leaving W3C to OASIS, etc. because some companies didn't like the terms. But the real damage is that the more strict the policy is, and the more rigid the process is, the less likely are people to participate. We all have jobs and employers and in most cases they control our IP and ability to participate in any such process. People come to the IETF because this is where the knowledge is. This is where the experience is for many internet technologies. The IETF does not have the power or means to stop anyone from changing their work or proposing competing standards. What it has is the voice of a community that still matters more than many. I have a lot of criticism for the IETF IPR process, or complete lack of meaningful protections. But I don't go around pointing fingers and make up conspiracy theories. I just talk to people, bring small and big players to the table, and try to be creative about it. And guess what, people are actually listening to what we are doing in the OWF. If you think I am full of it, just wait a year or two and let's talk again then. EHL _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf