Re: Ballot: The PPP Encryption Control Protocol (ECP) to Proposed Standard

[Frank Kastenholz <[e-mail]>]

 > I agree.  I'd like to see such RFCs include
 > 
 > a) a brief warning about possible patent claims at the beginning of the 
 > document, referring the reader to an appendix for more details.
 > 
 > b) an appendix to the document, added by IESG or whomever, stating
 > that 
 >
 > + so-and-so has notified IESG claiming they have patents on the
 >   technology, and expressly stating that IESG or IETF makes
 >   no judgement on the validity of such claims.
 > 
 > + whether and under what terms the patent holder has agreed to
 >   license the technology  (if they won't disclose the terms,
 >   whatever statement they've given us to make us think they're
 >   being "fair".)

This will be in the document. It is allowed to make some final
changes (especially editorial ones) in response to the IESG vote.
Basically it will say 
	motorola makes a patent claim on this (#foo and #bar).
	contact mumble for licensing information. see rfc variance-
	for-ccpecp for additional information.

 > + further progression and continuance of this protocol on the
 >   standards track may depend on whether the patent holder is
 >   believed to have licensed its technology fairly

This was discussed in the IESG. It was felt that the other criteria
for moving to proposed -- 2 interoperable independent implementations
-- is probably adequate. If we get this then there is some indication
that licenses can be had at not-completely-unfair-terms. Anything
else and we just open ourselves up to all sorts of pain and trouble.

--

Frank Kastenholz