> From: Scott Brim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > On Thu, May 30, 2002 10:59:27AM -0400, RJ Atkinson wrote: > > My druthers would be to have an IETF policy explicitly saying > > that the first choice is to use unencumbered technology if it > > can be made to work, second choice is encumbered but > > royalty-free technology, and last choice is "fair and reasonable > > licence terms" (or whatever the equivalent correct legal wording > > might be for that last). > > and if one solution is 120% better technically than another, but has a > RAND license associated with it? What if it's 170% better?
The de-facto policy in these cases has been to choose the less-encumbered technology as the standard (i.e. MUST implement), and the more-encumbered technology an option (MAY implement). For example, when RSA was still encumbered and Diffie-Hellman was not, the IETF settled on making Diffie-Hellman mandatory, RSA optional. Maybe this should be documented. -- Christian Huitema
