Re: recourse if our rules are violated?

[John C Klensin <john-ietf at jck.com>]

--On Tuesday, 10 April, 2007 11:35 +0200 Simon Josefsson
<simon at josefsson.org> wrote:

> What is possible, though, is to build consensus around moving
> the patented technology off the standards track.  It should be
> possible to do so.
> 
> I believe this approach can be discussed in more detail: some
> WGs (e.g., DNSEXT) have consensus that they aren't interested
> in patented technology for one of their problems.  If a patent
> came up after RFC publication, or even after the DNSEXT WG is
> closed, having some guidelines to go on how to address the
> situation may be useful.  Alas, because the process is so
> slow, I suspect most people will not bother doing this work,
> and just route around the RFC by inventing new solutions
> without patent problems.  If this is true, I believe it
> suggests a process failure regarding handling situations after
> a RFC has been published.

This was precisely the reason I suggested making a review of the
document that is the subject of a disclosure mandatory if there
was a late filing of an IPR disclosure against it.  I hope it
was obvious that such a review might result in a recommendation
to pull something off the standards track (actually changing the
status would still require a Last Call, etc., consistent with
other procedures).

     john







_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wg at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg