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

On Fri, 8 Jun 2007, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

> 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.

a bit of catch up for those who aren't following DNSSEC

http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsop/current/msg05465.html
  https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/ipr_detail_show.cgi?&ipr_id=856
  http://www.connotech.com/optin_for_dnssec.pdf
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsop/current/msg05527.html

>      Brian
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ipr-wg mailing list
> Ipr-wg@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg
>

_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg