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
