Re: Effective vs intended handling of patent encumbrance in IETF wg and IESG

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

On 2007-06-05 15:24, Thierry Moreau wrote:
> For your information:
> 
> In draft-ietf-dnsext-rollover-requirements, an IETF wg effectively made 
> an a-priori decision to avoid the consideration of an IPR encumbered 
> alternative; the problem area being DNSSEC trust anchor key management. 
> I spare you the details of how the wg came to this decision, and how it 
> relates to the a-priori rejected alternative.
> 
> Now that the IESG accepted the above draft for publication as an RFC, it 
> becomes a procedural precedent for attempts to expeditiously restrict 
> IETF activities to IPR unencumbered alternatives.

Our rules have allowed WGs to choose to favor unencumbered solutions
for many years. You'd have to be much more specific about what
you mean by 'a priori' to explain why you think this is a precedent.

       Brian

_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg