>>>>> "John" == John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> writes:
John> Ok, Sam,
John> How do you feel about documents created in a group with some
John> other name, even if all the participants are active in the
John> IETF, creating an implementation or two, and then bringing the
John> spec to the IETF and saying "standardize this, but the spec is
John> fully-baked and deployed so you can't change it much without a
John> lot of justification"? We've seen that happen multiple times.
John> IMO, most of them were for other reasons but, if someone has
John> bad intentions toward the IETF disclosure rules, that is the
John> obvious mechanism for them to use and it results in much later
John> disclosure than you would like, with no IETF ability to claim
John> that people were obligated to disclose earlier.
I'm much more comfortable with this actually. See, I know that if I
participate in such an effort I'm not working under IETF IPR rules.
Again for me, especially when I'm contributing as an individual rather
than being funded by someone, it's a question of whether we're creating
a commons together. You want my time, you disclose before you advocate
your proposal.
It's important to me I be able to make that stick.