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,
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
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 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
-- dimanche, mai 26, 2002 20:04:30 +0200 Harald Alvestrand
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote/a écrit:
conflict with just about EVERY working group: The meeting that will talk
about the IETF procedures for intellectual property rights, including
copyright issues and - most ominously - patent issues.
--On Sunday, May 26, 2002 3:32 PM -0500 Pete Resnick
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It seems to me that exactly the same thing can be said about
POISSON and it gets along just fine conflicting with other
meetings.
Actually, Pete, POISSON didn't have a face to face meeting for
years, and the
- We now have 2 ADs per area. It would certainly be possible to
schedule this in such a way that at least one of them can attend,
even if it did overlap with other groups.
that's a stretch. there are often 2 simultaneous WG meetings in
a given area, and there are often meetings in other
At 07:43 PM 5/28/2002 -0400, Keith Moore wrote:
putting
meetings of general interest in time slots with little competition
seems like a good way to do this.
That is called a plenary.
d/
--
Dave Crocker mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
TribalWise, Inc. http://www.tribalwise.com
tel
That is called a plenary.
so call it a plenary, then.
Keith
there's a reason POISSON has lately avoided having physical meetings unless
it absolutely had to
--On 28. mai 2002 08:30 -0700 Dave Crocker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 03:32 PM 5/26/2002 -0500, Pete Resnick wrote:
It seems to me that exactly the same thing can be said about POISSON and
Cedric,
as Julie said, we are not scheduling things into Friday before the other
slots are full.
BUT - Yokohama will probably see one meeting that is, by definition, a
conflict with just about EVERY working group: The meeting that will talk
about the IETF procedures for intellectual property
On 5/26/02 at 8:04 PM +0200, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
Yokohama will probably see one meeting that is, by definition, a
conflict with just about EVERY working group: The meeting that will
talk about the IETF procedures for intellectual property rights,
including copyright issues and - most
I suspect if you haven't already arranged to stay for the fireworks, your
chances of finding accommodation are vanishingly small.
I've certainly just been told all the IETF recommended hotels have no
vacancies for beyond Friday night.
cheers
-George
--
George Michaelson | APNIC
Cedric -
We are do not have anything scheduled on Friday at this point and we are
trying to keep it clear. We will, of course, use that time if we
have to - if there are so many working groups that need to meet,
So, in all likelihood, there will not be meetings on Friday.
Thanks for
21 matches
Mail list logo
