On 19 Nov 2009, at 19:32, Dan Wing wrote: >> Rescinding RFCs-to-be only based on late disclosures may set >> a precedence for the future we may not like. > > Doing so would provide an incentive for the patent holder to delay disclosure > until after the RFC is issued. > > IETF lacks a censure policy for such violations. Maybe we need one. I have a suspicion that part of the problem is that in cases like this one, the IETF has demonstrated a will to validate IPR all by itself, which is fine except that nowhere that I know of have we publicly expressed our dissatisfaction with the vast majority of what passes for "Rescindable", preferring instead to do without at the time the disclosure is made. A BCP stating, "Patents are a nuisance, be told, and we'd sooner be without them." would seem to suit us well in cases where outsiders might otherwise be tempted to play fast and loose with the rules, perhaps this would encourage more upfront disclosures and, thereby, acceptance of reasonable and non-discriminatory IPR. And can the IETF deny its preference for non-patented work? I take no sides myself, I just want us to live in peace and harmony. Cheers, Sabahattin _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf