> The DNSEXT WG is a good example where patented technology has been > presented and time has been spent on discussing what to do with it. > Some time later the working group drafted a requirements document (RFC > 4986) which contained the following requirement '5.2. No Known > Intellectual Property Encumbrance'.
And is the text you quote specific to all DNS technology? Or just that one that is the subject of the document you cite? (To be clear, it is the latter.) > The inclination to standardize only non-patented technology in DNSEXT is > fairly strong. Yes, but the discussion still works best on a technology-by-technology basis, not on the broad "all DNS technology" swath that would be implied if the decision had to be made at WG formation time. Thomas _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
