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A specification may have been superseded by a more recent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