Re: recourse if our rules are violated?

[Scott W Brim <sbrim at cisco.com>]

On 04/12/2007 03:56 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> 
>> "An approved standards track RFC identified to specify 'patented'
>>  technology after its approval, where contributors neglected their
>>  duties to disclose IPR under BCP 79, MAY be removed from standards
>>  track, if there's no IETF consensus for a different approach."
> 
> Why would we write that down, when it's already true? I believe this is
> well within the IESG's power under RFC 2026.

I tend to agree.  Consider ... If an IPR disclosure glitch is
discovered for an RFC, there needs to be IETF consensus on what to do
with it, where removing it from standards track is one option.  The
obvious first step in IETF consensus is Working Group reevaluation.
When they are done there can be an IETF last call on their decision,
but their decision could be anything at all.  I seem to recall that we
have done this with other RFCs based on other discoveries not related
to IPR.

The procedure described here is already in place in 2026.  If a
problem is discovered with something that's standards track, the WG
will consider how to revise it, where the "revision" may be a new RFC
to replace it (in which case it is moved to different status, even
Historic).

So if you want to add a new sentence, it should not be about
procedure, since we already have all the procedure we need.  What is
special here is the particular reason for invoking that process.  If
you want to add a sentence, I would just note that one possible reason
for a major revision or replacement of a standards track document
would be discovery of new IPR claims against it.

swb

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