Re: Second Last Call: <draft-ietf-sieve-notify-sip-message-08.txt>(Sieve Notification Mechanism: SIP MESSAGE) to Proposed Standard

["t.petch" <[e-mail]>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Pete Resnick" <[e-mail]>
To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[e-mail]>
Cc: <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, January 27, 2012 12:06 AM
> On 1/26/12 4:45 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
Michael Richardson
> >> Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 2:36 PM
> >> To: [e-mail]
> >> Subject: Re: Second Last Call:<draft-ietf-sieve-notify-sip-message-
> >> 08.txt>  (Sieve Notification Mechanism: SIP MESSAGE) to Proposed
> >> Standard
> >>
> >> At this point, I do not have a clear idea of what the set of outcomes
> >> could be.  I think that they can include:
> >>     1) not publishing the document.
> >>     2) revising the document to remove/work-around the encumbered work
> >>
>
> Yes, certainly those are choices.
>
> >>     3) some legal action to attend to anul the patent (which might or
> >>        might not succeed).
> >>
>
> I don't think this is something that we can do *as the IETF*. Certainly
> others are welcome to pursue that.
>
> >>     4) go ahead and publish things as they are.
> >>
> > I also thought about suggesting a DNP or a standing DISCUSS or something
until the license terms are made more IETF-friendly, unless the WG can find a
way to do equivalent work that is unencumbered, but then the WG might not have
the energy left.
> >
> > The document could be restricted to Experimental status, but that presumes
the status matters as much as or more than the RFC number.  I don't know if
that's true or not in this case.
> >
>
> These are also choices.
>
> > Those only cover the document though, and not the offender(s).  Still
chewing on an opinion about that.
> >
>
> Other choices that involve both the document and the author(s) are
> similar to ones outlined by other folks:
>
> - The author of the patent can be removed from the author list at the
> top of the document.
> (In effect, this would be the IETF asking the WG chair to fire the
> document editor for failure to comply with IETF process. The result
> would be the author not getting the recognition as a document editor,
> though they would still appear in the Acknowledgments section.)
>
> - Removal of posting rights of the author from the WG or IETF mailing
> lists, even perhaps via a PR Action for being "disruptive" of the IETF
> process.

Pete

Whether or not this I-D is published as an RFC I see as an issue for the WG.  I
do not believe that I, nor many of those outside the WG, have the information on
which to make an informed decision.

On the individual in question, then yes, I believe that he should not be listed
as an author.

In the absence of any further explanatory communication from him, I would also
suspend his posting rights.

Tom Petch

> Coincidentally, but not by chance, Adrian and I have been working on a
> draft to discuss such sanctions that we are just about to post. I hope
> that sparks some ideas as well.
>
> pr
>
> --
> Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
> Qualcomm Incorporated - Direct phone: [phone], Fax: [phone]
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>
>