Re: recourse if our rules are violated?

[Frank Ellermann <nobody at xyzzy.claranet.de>]

Scott W Brim wrote:

 [about my "MAY remove from standards track if..."]
> On 04/12/2007 03:56 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

>> Why would we write that down, when it's already true?

We wouldn't.  I thought that this would require a new
consensus for the new status.  My proposal allowed to
decree a new status unless there's a consensus against it.

Shifting the burden to gather a consensus to the folks
who want to keep the submarine patent on standards track.

>> I believe this is well within the IESG's power under
>> RFC 2026.

Which part do you have in mind ?  I see the "move to
historic" in 6.2 and 6.4.  For the IPR rule violation
discussed here "historic" could be a misnomer.  The
patented technology is not necessarily "moribund", it's
only not good enough for standards track.

> 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.

If you think that "move to historic" is enough, yes.

Frank



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