On Tue, 28 May 2002, Melinda Shore wrote:
At 02:58 PM 5/28/02 -0500, Pete Resnick wrote:
Again, I'm not going to object to using meeting time for this kind of
session if that's what's needed. But other than Harald's message, I
have not heard anything about this since Minneapolis and have not
--On 28. mai 2002 14:58 -0500 Pete Resnick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Again, I'm not going to object to using meeting time for this kind of
session if that's what's needed. But other than Harald's message, I have
not heard anything about this since Minneapolis and have not heard folks
Melinda Shore wrote:
... IPR is increasingly a huge nuisance,
and because the current policy is less than completely clear
there's a lot of confusion about it when it comes up.
I think it's pretty clear. That doesn't mean it doesn't
cause confusion, because it certainly does. There is a
At 11:03 AM 5/29/02 +0200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
I think it's pretty clear. That doesn't mean it doesn't
cause confusion, because it certainly does. There is a strong
case for an informational document and presentation to try to
get rid of the confusion, but that doesn't need a meeting or a
On Wed, May 29, 2002 09:36:44AM -0400, Melinda Shore wrote:
Aside from situations in which some competing technologies are
encumbered and some are not, we're now finding ourselves in situations
where all of the proposed technologies are encumbered but have
different licensing terms. I think
If what you are asking for is that for every proposal / i-d that shows
up in the IETF, the IPR holder is automatically required to provide an
RF license, you really don't understand the reason people bother with
patents to begin with.
doesn't follow. it's entirely possible to understand why
As I recall, RAND was explicitly selected over RF because there are and
will be technologies that are interesting to incorporate in a
system-wide standard approach, and forcing RF terms would automatically
exclude those. There is enough of a bias in the participants toward RF
when available,
On Wed, May 29, 2002 09:10:20PM +0100, Graham Klyne wrote:
How do we best approach the design of Internet technologies so that
IPR-related obstructions to their deployment will be minimized?
That assumes IPR-related goals are obstructions. For me they're a pain
but I've been burned so I have
Marshall Rose wrote:
As I recall, RAND was explicitly selected over RF because
there are and
will be technologies that are interesting to incorporate in a
system-wide standard approach, and forcing RF terms would
automatically
exclude those. There is enough of a bias in the
sure is a lot of interest in this subject from diverse folk. maybe
we should hold a wg/bof meeting on friday in yokohama to discuss it.
randy
On Wed, May 29, 2002 02:58:59PM -0700, Dave Crocker wrote:
It is not clear that an entire week of discussion would be fruitful
for that sort of deep and broad requirement for substantial process
and concept invention, nevermind a couple of hours at the end of a
long work-week, with little
Don't miss:
* Geek Tour to Akihabara (electonics town), Sunday July 14 @ 1100. Meet by
entrance to Queens Shopping Mall. Return by 1700 for reception. (Tour may
be repeated on Saturday, July 20.)
* Pipe Organ Demonstration and mini Concert at Minato Mirai Hall, Fisk
Organ (next door to IETF
At 06:34 PM 5/29/2002 -0400, Scott Brim wrote:
arguments won't do it. There are only two ways to change IETF culture:
(1) have people of influence issue a document of some sort and promote
it for 3 years, or (2) have a plenary meeting and come up with a good
sound bite to summarize a solution
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Keith Moore writes:
If what you are asking for is that for every proposal / i-d that shows
up in the IETF, the IPR holder is automatically required to provide an
RF license, you really don't understand the reason people bother with
patents to begin with.
doesn't
doesn't follow. it's entirely possible to understand why people bother
with patents and still believe that IETF shouldn't support their use to
prevent free implementation of a standard.
There's an interesting dilemma here. I know of one case where some
IETFers tried *hard* -- and
On 5/29/02 at 3:35 PM -0700, Randy Bush wrote:
sure is a lot of interest in this subject from diverse folk. maybe
we should hold a wg/bof meeting on friday in yokohama to discuss it.
Oooo.that's a good idea. While we're on topics which generate a
lot of interest from diverse folk, let's
On Wed, 29 May 2002 15:35:26 PDT, Randy Bush said:
sure is a lot of interest in this subject from diverse folk. maybe
we should hold a wg/bof meeting on friday in yokohama to discuss it.
Just remember to let us non-travellers know what happened. ;)
--
Valdis
On Wed, 29 May 2002 15:40:55 PDT, Tony Hain said:
Clearly from the responses I didn't make my point in that last
paragraph. The original note mentioned VRRP specifically, and in that
case the IPR holder didn't bring the proposal to the IETF. The way I
read that note, the Free Software
Dear Sir/Madam,
In outsourcing Email Services,
1) Can we trust the Administrator of the Mail Server ?
2) Security Precautions taken by the Internet Service Providers(ISP) ?
3) Protection from facilities available with Mailing Software.
I wish know your experience.
Champake
Assitant Director
19 matches
Mail list logo
