[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: FLAWS in the Standards Process...

In message <137600000.1055097872@askvoll.hjemme.alvestrand.no>, Harald Tveit Al
vestrand writes:
>
>The standards process' requirements for Draft Standard is
>
>   A specification from which at least two independent and interoperable
>   implementations from different code bases have been developed, and
>   for which sufficient successful operational experience has been
>   obtained, may be elevated to the "Draft Standard" level.
>
>It says nothing at all about the implementations being owned by different 
>companies.
>One person or team implementing the protocol twice would not constitute 
>"independent" implementations, however.

As Harald has said, independent ownership isn't the point.  The reason 
for the "two independent implementations" rule is so that we know that 
the spec is clear enough that two different implementors can follow it 
successfully.  It has nothing to do with IPR.

I would also note -- wearing my IPR chair hat -- that cross-posts 
between the IPR working group and POISED are almost always 
inappropriate.  This post certainly is -- it has nothing whatsoever to 
do with the charter of this group.  Please stop such off-topic posts -- 
NOW.  Note that you have previously be warned privately, pursuant to 
RFC 2418.


		--Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb (me)
		http://www.wilyhacker.com (2nd edition of "Firewalls" book)


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