On 25 Sep 2007 at 18:40 +0000, Paul Vixie allegedly wrote: > very clear, very well done, but if anything it adds to my list of > questions rather than subtracting from that, since it begs the > question, what is the objective definition of "reasonable and > nondiscriminatory"?
The more a disclosure clarifies that, the more the WGs like it. On 25 Sep 2007 at 11:51 -0700, Stephan Wenger allegedly wrote: > Actually, per RFC 3978 and friends, the IETF does not even require a > RAND commitment. There have recently been cases where RFCs have > been issued with known patents that are not offered under RAND > terms. It's up to the WG and IETF consensus to decide whether I-Ds > including such encumbered technology can become RFCs (and what class > of RFCs). Right. I'm with Ted ... let's take this over to ipr-wg. Scott _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
