[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thierry Moreau) writes:
> This question is serious, to the extent that the DNSOP activities are
> worth the effort devoted to it by participants. So let me re-prhase the
> question (actually the question had two facets):
>
> Is this proposed wg activity open (i.e. "The IETF has basic requirements
> for open and fair participation and for thorough consideration of
> technical alternatives." from RFC2418 section 3)?
>
> Is this proposed wg activity already limited by the message archived at
> http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsop/current/msg05460.html ?
i'm not a wgchair or anything, so this is just my opinion. anyone who is
going to submit proposals for dns technology should not include encumbered
IPR. if i can't implement an RFC in BSDL F/OSS, then it's a bad RFC. if
folks can't fetch, compile, build, install, derive from, and make money
from the BSDL F/OSS that results from implementing an RFC, then it's a bad
RFC. if i see a "bad I-D" then i will object to it becoming a "bad RFC".
i think this means that the answer to t-m's questions amount to "no" even
though asullivan's answer ("it depends") is probably more accurate. t-m
has in the past said that he wants IETF to standardize encumbered IPR so
that he can make money from license fees paid by people who deploy it. i
think that's offensive screwheadedness and i am opposed to it.
--
Paul Vixie
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
