On 2007-04-12 15:54, Frank Ellermann wrote:
...
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.
Section 4.2:
A specification may have been superseded by a more recent
Internet Standard, or have otherwise fallen into disuse or disfavor.
----------------------------------------^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Specifications that are not on the standards track are labeled with
one of three "off-track" maturity levels: "Experimental",
"Informational", or "Historic". The documents bearing these labels
are not Internet Standards in any sense.
It's clear to me that this covers the case of an unknown and
undesirable IPR encumbrance.
Section 6.1:
A "standards action" -- entering a particular specification into,
advancing it within, or removing it from, the standards track -- must
be approved by the IESG.
So removing a document from the standards track is explicitly a power
of the IESG, and subject to the usual appeals process if needed.
Brian
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
_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wg at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg