Re: recourse if our rules are violated?

["Tom Petch" <nwnetworks at dial.pipex.com>]

I am puzzled. For some years now, our RFC have been carrying the boiler plate
"   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
   this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at
   ietf-ipr at ietf.org."
so this situation was contemplated at least three years ago (I first saw it in
RFC3710:-).

So what did whoever introduced that text intend to happen?

(I appreciate that this thread is drifting away from the original question by
Steve which related to violation - suspend the violator sine die?)

Tom Petch

----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian E Carpenter" <brc at zurich.ibm.com>
To: "Frank Ellermann" <nobody at xyzzy.claranet.de>
Cc: <ipr-wg at ietf.org>
Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2007 5:04 PM
Subject: Re: recourse if our rules are violated?


> 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     A specification may have been superseded by a more recent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


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