----- Original Message ----- From: "Pete Resnick" <presnick@xxxxxxxxxxxx> To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Cc: <ietf@xxxxxxxx> Sent: Friday, January 27, 2012 12:06 AM > 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. Pete Whether or not this I-D is published as an RFC I see as an issue for the WG. I do not believe that I, nor many of those outside the WG, have the information on which to make an informed decision. On the individual in question, then yes, I believe that he should not be listed as an author. In the absence of any further explanatory communication from him, I would also suspend his posting rights. Tom Petch > 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 > > _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf