On Apr 3, 2019, at 1:37 AM, Joseph Salowey <[email protected]> wrote: > > Thanks for reviving this thread. I agree this is important work, but we need > to have consensus to bring the item into the working group. I think the IPR > issue is the main sticking point. > > I'll note that RFC 5448 has a similar IPR declaration and both documents are > targeted as informational. Some possible ways forward: > > 1. Come up with an alternative proposal. Since no one has already stepped > forward I don't think this is realistic. > 2. Accept the document into the working group. > 3. Reject the document, which will force the work to go through the > independent submission process, which will probably result in less broad and > thorough review. > 4. Amendment to the license terms of the IPR - I have received no indication > that this will happen > > The document will likely get published in either case 2 or 3 above. I'd like > to work through this discussion over the next few weeks so please voice your > views on this thread.
Despite my misgivings, I think (2) is necessary here. It would be helpful for the IETF as a whole to acknowledge the importance of Open Source in the IETF process. And, that "RAND" licensing isn't necessarily RAND when fees are involved. e.g. "Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory License to All Implementers with Possible Royalty/Fee" OK, *what* is that fee? A million dollars for a 5G operator / vendor? How much should an Open Source implementation pay? Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Emu mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu
