IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: ITU and IETF - Copyrights

Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu Mon, 21 September 1998 20:30 UTC

Received: (from adm@localhost) by ietf.org (8.8.5/8.8.7a) id QAA24348 for ietf-outbound.10@ietf.org; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 16:30:02 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from black-ice.cc.vt.edu (root@black-ice.cc.vt.edu [128.173.14.71]) by ietf.org (8.8.5/8.8.7a) with ESMTP id QAA24256 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 16:21:18 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from black-ice.cc.vt.edu (valdis@LOCALHOST [127.0.0.1]) by black-ice.cc.vt.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA21970; Mon, 21 Sep 1998 16:20:42 -0400
Message-Id: <199809212020.QAA21970@black-ice.cc.vt.edu>
X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0.2 2/24/98
To: Jim Fleming <JimFleming@unety.net>
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: ITU and IETF - Copyrights
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 21 Sep 1998 14:31:20 CDT." <0f4501bde596$6b9c4360$059f20cf@webster.unir.net>
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
X-Url: http://black-ice.cc.vt.edu/~valdis/
X-Face: 34C9$Ewd2zeX+\!i1BA\j{ex+$/V'JBG#; 3_noWWYPa"|,I#`R"{n@w>#:{)FXyiAS7(8t( ^*w5O*!8O9YTe[r{e%7(yVRb|qxsRYw`7J!`AM}m_SHaj}f8eb@d^L>BrX7iO[<!v4-0bVIpaxF#-) %9#a9h6JXI|T|8o6t\V?kGl]Q!1V]GtNliUtz:3},0"hkPeBuu%E,j(:\iOX-P,t7lRR#
References: <0f4501bde596$6b9c4360$059f20cf@webster.unir.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="==_Exmh_-755712410P"; micalg="pgp-md5"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 16:20:38 -0400

On Mon, 21 Sep 1998 14:31:20 CDT, "Jim Fleming" said:
> I think people understand that. The question was whether
> people will have a choice. What happens if a company
> decides to work with the ITU first with knowledge that their
> work will then obtain an RSP* from the IETF ? Is that going
> to be the process ?

Market Share.  Time To Ship.  Working Code versus Lots of Meetings.

I's sure that if a company ever emerges that wants to go the ITU route
*first*, and it still produces a usable product/protocol when the process
is completed, the IETF will be willing to look at a draft RFC.

Just Like Anything Else.

C'mon Jim.  Go read RFC804, RFC892, RFC905, RFC926, RFC941, RFC982,
RFC983, RFC986, RFC994, RFC995, RFC1006-1008, RFC1070, RFC1085-1087,
RFC1142, RFC1161, and a flock of others (I'm too tired to keep
searching).  We understand how to do this.

RFC1606 is also most enlightening.

-- 
				Valdis Kletnieks
				Computer Systems Senior Engineer
				Virginia Tech

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email