can someone who followed the POISED effort please explain IETF's policies around restricted IPR? i really feel a need to avoid poisoning my thinking by accidentally reading somebody's draft that recommends restricted IPR. we already know that such drafts won't pass WGLC, and i'm a member of a largish set of people who would lodge process complaints with IESG and/or IAB if such a draft were to somehow sneak through WGLC. so why isn't there a rule against submitting drafts covered by restrictive IPR in the first place?
T-M's suggestions here follow his prior IPR attack in dnsext ("TAKREM"), and it's just one stupid waste of time after another for all concerned. the only possible beneficiary of this waste is T-M himself, if he wants to be able to show prior art during some later patent lawsuit. there ought to be a rule that IPR disclosures must accompany all proposals, including mailing list posts, and the moderator ought to simply squash anything that's encumbered. -- Paul Vixie _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop