Re: Idea for a process experiment to reward running code...

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

Hi Brian,

On 12/02/2012 08:41 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Another condition for a fast track must be the absence of
> unresolved IPR disclosures. I can see a big risk here - that
> someone will use the fast track procedure to game the IPR
> disclosure rule. First, release your open source code, using
> an open source licence that doesn't assert the absence of IPR.
> Then, post the 00 draft and persuade an AD to fast track it.
> (The draft assumes there is a WG involved, but the IETF process
> does not require a WG.) Then, "discover" the IPR and disclose it.
> All within 3 weeks.

Ah good point. This is only intended for WG documents, but the
late-IPR point is a good one nonetheless. I've added a sentence
saying any late-IPR declaration sends the draft back to the WG.
That's a potential DoS of course, but not a new one really.

Ta,
S.

> 
>    Brian
> 
> On 01/12/2012 20:12, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> ...
>> [1] http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-farrell-ft
> 
>