Re: recourse if our rules are violated?

Frank Ellermann wrote:
> If you don't like the SHOULD we can try a MAY without
IETF consensus:
>
> "An approved standards track RFC identified to
specify 'patented'
>  technology after its approval, where contributors
neglected their
>  duties to disclose IPR under BCP 79, MAY be removed
from standards
>  track, if there's no IETF consensus for a different
approach."
>
> There is already a "default" rule how to get
rid of cruft, but it's
> not appropriate for such submarine patents, and getting
a consensus
> to demote the RFC might be tricky.  With an explicit
MAY the IETF
> consensus has to be 'no, we want to keep this RFC
anyway' to avoid
> the demotion, and picking this "option" (MAY)
would be limited to
> the IESG (or the outcome of an appeal).
>   
Remember that the 2119 uppercase MAY is logically equivalent
to MAY 
NOT..... it means that an implementor may choose to do this,
or may 
choose to not do it....

_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wgietf.org
https:/
/www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

Harald Alvestrand wrote:

> Remember that the 2119 uppercase MAY is logically
equivalent to MAY
> NOT..... it means that an implementor may choose to do
this, or may
> choose to not do it....

Yes, I automatically read "maybe not" whenever I
see a MAY.  But the
"implementor" in this case is the IESG (or after
an appeal the IAB),
they'd ask for legal advise wrt "identified 'patented'
technology" -
just somebody filing an IPR disclosure isn't a proper
identification.

I think this OPTION doesn't exist today, the only way to get
rid of
the problematic standard would be another PS obsoleting it,
and/or a
move to "historic".  No chance for a move to
"info" or "experimental"
yet (AFAICT).  With the MAY anything goes, nothing's wrong
with an
"info" RFC explaining patented stuff.

Frank (MD5 and BOCU-1 fan)



_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wgietf.org
https:/
/www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg