>>>>> On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 14:35:36 -0700, Mohsen BANAN <lists-ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> said: Mohsen> Now in this particular case of a patent Mohsen> contaminated protocol extension why would non-RFC Mohsen> publication be adequate? I omitted the important "not" in that sentence. I meant: Now in this particular case of a patent contaminated protocol extension why would not non-RFC publication be adequate? I am asking as to why it should be published as an RFC (any status) when we know to begin with that it is a patent contaminated specification. Addressing the RFC Editor: Has there ever been a case before where a known patent contaminated specifiaction been published as an independent submission? What are the RFC Editor's values/policies with respect to publication of known patent contaminated specifiactions? What are the minimum rights demanded from the patent holder in such a case? -- Mohsen BANAN http://mohsen.banan.1.byname.net Neda Communications, Inc http://www.neda.com _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf