----- Original Message ----- From: "Brian E Carpenter" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2016 11:56 PM > On 19/02/2016 10:25, William Herrin wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 10:28 AM, joel jaeggli <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 2/18/16 7:18 AM, William Herrin wrote: > >>> In my opinion, IETF standards track RFCs should be reserved for > >>> protocols for which further development is expected to occur primarily > >>> within the IETF framework. As I understand the situation (feel free to > >>> correct me if I'm wrong), TACACS+ is a vendor maintained standard, > >>> specifically Cisco. Regardless of publication, Cisco intends to retain > >>> control of the standard and its future development. > >> > >> Assuming the document is split into to pieces here part of goal as I > >> understand it is address the issue of adding ssl to the existing > >> specification in an inter-operable fashion. > > > > Hi Joel, > > > > Is Cisco prepared to cede further change control of the core TACACS+ > > standard to the IETF process? > > The IETF deals with individual contributors, not companies. As Scott noted, > the authors have already given change control to the IETF by submitting a > draft with the appropriate boilerplate.
And what I have seen more than once is a large, American company, which shares an e-mail domain with IETF participants who have actively worked on an I-D, submit an IPR claim late in the day. When asked, the participants have explained that American law is such that companies aim to keep participants in the dark about possible IPR claims. So the participants have honestly and accurately answered all the questions about IPR and yet the company (with the same e-mail domain) has put in a late claim. So until it is, or is just about to be, an RFC, I don't know whether or not a technology will be encumbered by an IPR claim and I know of nothing that the participants can say to allay my concerns (the company's lawyers might be able to:-). Tom Petch > Of course, what any company chooses to actually implement is their own > business. > > Brian > > _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
