On 1/26/12 4:45 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Michael Richardson Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 2:36 PM To: ietf@xxxxxxxx Subject: Re: Second Last Call:<draft-ietf-sieve-notify-sip-message- 08.txt> (Sieve Notification Mechanism: SIP MESSAGE) to Proposed Standard At this point, I do not have a clear idea of what the set of outcomes could be. I think that they can include: 1) not publishing the document. 2) revising the document to remove/work-around the encumbered work
Yes, certainly those are choices.
3) some legal action to attend to anul the patent (which might or might not succeed).
I don't think this is something that we can do *as the IETF*. Certainly others are welcome to pursue that.
4) go ahead and publish things as they are.I also thought about suggesting a DNP or a standing DISCUSS or something until the license terms are made more IETF-friendly, unless the WG can find a way to do equivalent work that is unencumbered, but then the WG might not have the energy left. The document could be restricted to Experimental status, but that presumes the status matters as much as or more than the RFC number. I don't know if that's true or not in this case.
These are also choices.
Those only cover the document though, and not the offender(s). Still chewing on an opinion about that.
Other choices that involve both the document and the author(s) are similar to ones outlined by other folks:
- The author of the patent can be removed from the author list at the top of the document. (In effect, this would be the IETF asking the WG chair to fire the document editor for failure to comply with IETF process. The result would be the author not getting the recognition as a document editor, though they would still appear in the Acknowledgments section.)
- Removal of posting rights of the author from the WG or IETF mailing lists, even perhaps via a PR Action for being "disruptive" of the IETF process.
Coincidentally, but not by chance, Adrian and I have been working on a draft to discuss such sanctions that we are just about to post. I hope that sparks some ideas as well.
pr -- Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/> Qualcomm Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102 _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf