[lamps] Re: Complaint regarding BCP 79 violations

[Michael StJohns <[e-mail]>]

Damn - didn't get around to muting before this came in.

On 4/30/2025 5:55 PM, D. J. Bernstein wrote:
> Michael StJohns writes:
>> I believe complaints about using IPR in standards goes through the
>> normal WG/IESG/IAB/ISOC appeals chain.
> This was addressed to the IESG, since it wasn't resolved by the WG
> chairs or by the AD. Given the "IETF activities are conducted with
> extreme transparency, in public forums" rule, it was cc'ed to the WG.
> The problem is in two drafts coming from the WG.

Except that the body of your message demands that 1) this be carried out 
on the spasm list, and 2) that the LLC and its agents be cc'd.  That's 
not how appeals work.

It's appropriate to note that an appeal has been filed on the 
appropriate list - and then move on to other things..

BUT discussions within the various appeals organizations are for the 
most part not public (those depend on the specific procedures each group 
uses).  You file the appeal, you provide your information.  The appeals 
bodies do their own research and come to a conclusion and write that 
conclusion and publish it with any supporting information.  See RFC2026, 
section 6.5.

>> I doubt most folk will want to a open a PDF.
> PDF is a document format specified by ISO, supported by a wide range of
> free software, and used for a vast number of IETF documents (random
> example:https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9728.pdf) Were there any
> complaints on list when a PDF was sent around to LAMPS in email dated
> 18 Oct 2024 16:48:14 +0800? Anyway, if you have some reason to advocate
> prohibiting PDF for IETF-related communications in the future, please
> find an appropriate WG to raise that proposal.

PDFs are a well known vector for malware - 
https://www.opswat.com/blog/05-signs-of-malicious-behavior-and-embedded-threats-in-pdfs 
- especially from un-trusted sources.  I take care in opening them, and 
knowing who they are from.  I don't open them unless I have to.

Fortunately, I don't have to as this is addressed to the IESG.

Later, Mike