On 11 May 2007 04:14:57 +0000 Paul wrote: PV> can someone who followed the POISED effort please explain IETF's policies PV> around restricted IPR? [...] so why isn't there a rule against PV> submitting drafts covered by restrictive IPR in the first place? PV> PV> [...] there ought to be a rule PV> that IPR disclosures must accompany all proposals, including mailing list PV> posts, and the moderator ought to simply squash anything that's encumbered.
I think the rules on IPR are already well defined in some RFC, and it's way off-topic for this mailing list. I understand your frustration, and regardless of my own opinions of Mr. Moreau and his efforts, I think there are a few reasons why your post was unnecessary: - There hasn't been any messages indicating support, which means that there's not really anything to object to yet. - Mr Moreau indicated he was willing to offer a free license for use of the idea: > In this context, I intend to file an IPR disclosure statement offering > a free, universal, non-exclusive, time-unlimited license to use the > above idea (that is conveniently defined by reference to the claims as > they stand) for DNS root zone file publishing by any DNS root zone > operator, conditional to the approval of your draft with the above idea > included. I think this is exactly the sort of thing the IPR RFC requires for accepting encumbered ideas. (Although the restriction to root zone operators is a bit troubling.) Anyways, the basic idea is that there's no need to start the flame-fest/endless arguments until it looks like there is actually some support for the idea. -- Robert Story SPARTA
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
