Re: Change in IPR policies

Robert Raszuk <> Wed, 10 June 2020 15:26 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 838F63A0946 for <>; Wed, 10 Jun 2020 08:26:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HnS94qTN_opP for <>; Wed, 10 Jun 2020 08:26:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::634]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A56E03A094E for <>; Wed, 10 Jun 2020 08:26:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id n24so3080166ejd.0 for <>; Wed, 10 Jun 2020 08:26:49 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=qvSoZE6iVd9Nd66u+PW4M5/YDgip4G/yPJqiVRJMXuI=; b=CeI1QxjHXSxzFwjyT82FPH2wLpKgxY8kfdpHz0ZLu7yXp/EQSntDS7BemhU59cqU5i lAOoUIpXNYREtbogypYbFImmvpJbJw3pornY1/1893wY6HwHGeP/KoXPEmtIehYHhMxi O5BkRBqRr7Q+45zcLnmfjHaLi/n9YqgyoHyV7zIV8qdg4AckcSFrERj9HbE49W+YQ8SO ZdcebX/RCwqWTJrZcJW8rcU171oxY2Yed70a4Xy7eHOG83aajJvghF2nmMsGwmDI9VHX onV+7xXRVQQoi6UoLyXzAC9pKpxF9DxGquPIIy7SJYdC/GzJn7qn50H4KdPPXDWUA6SE ANEg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=qvSoZE6iVd9Nd66u+PW4M5/YDgip4G/yPJqiVRJMXuI=; b=H5ayRy6bKyEpL7CUswOXxbJ7unAZzBTIsWQyp8P5JqR3ZCYp6qgQoS9bo41FC9ikkO 0ae8QLNtmBVL2BHpenx72A6JEIjWQ2+OrGAqE8jAoCiGgw5OqS9VD9WV9w5qB+NF6CIe 7MsmshPIxKFsxTzuIO5Wl4j67anV/3kQ+k/BMaGcMEWV1u04ZNOSUzm147yCQ3yscvju 7wXVJy5fBsZ7pRPs7Q9QGyg21vZt8CP5oiOM3UUJ0YYaR2k/yUD9ba08+M9CDDkmUFIF h9HjIVim1DAh6UworpNyxbOqdHnOm7PhYpHR/uHv93L37W/nGNdnRpMG1WPnoEntq0ag /0bQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5321zxpeL8T85ri4JcKkykusWAUH5HueQdVLyGP38Tzpbt8i3tqH IHwUGRuEIw5hnyqhVFgu6WP3l/iJCOwkaztBZyqSupVo
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwkeuBZDsHw4spOHK3NqCaw4egqbqM3VMrwxOz8MjSwlots0cGhyXflL9PNUX2P2f4R5Hg6gDgTm5aJUI1E4NQ=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:4989:: with SMTP id p9mr4028316eju.417.1591802806821; Wed, 10 Jun 2020 08:26:46 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <96A3BDFE6F7DC38D2366581F@PSB> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Robert Raszuk <>
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2020 17:26:34 +0200
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: Change in IPR policies
To: Jay Daley <>
Cc: John C Klensin <>,, IETF <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000da87ca05a7bc78d0"
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2020 15:26:52 -0000

> I think the intent there was to restrict livestreaming and nothing else as
> the combination of live streaming + open jabber rooms would effectively
> allow participation without registration.  Once I’ve reviewed I will get
> that corrected.

Is this so ? I understand that IETF LLC wants to make money ... after all
Hollywood makes money for film makers too.

So if I do not pay I can not participate (meaning present or even ask
questions live), but why I can not even watch it live as passive user ?

I must wait some time after it ends to passively watch and start asking
questions on the mailing list ? Is there some other reason for such
rules other then squeeze more cash ?

Sorry but this all simply is not what IETF used to be. This is becoming
like a commercial institution with clear business objectives where
standards and IETF are becoming just elements to fill the bank accounts.