Dean Anderson wrote:
Unfortunately, Todd's delicate sarcasm is probably lost on most...
The method was determined by the IETF. The last call is a public comment
period to gage consensus. There is nothing wrong with the method of the
FSF in participating.
Sure there is Dean - let me propose a theory here...
The theory is that the formal agreement to issue the standard was made
years ago and anything that interferes with that for any reason other
that 'technical failure of the vetting, interoperability testing, or
documentation process' constitutes an unethical action of tortuous
interference in a preexisting contractual relationship between the IETF
and the Standards Development contact's relying parties and *** MUST ***
be rebuked by the IETF.
Further, at this point the issue of whether to issue the standard has
NOTHING to do with whether its patented or not and who owns that patent.
Jorge as the IETF's attorney I suggest that you respond to this.
My statement here is that if that vetting has finished and that instance
of the vetting has interoperability testing done for it, and that
testing satisfies the specification the WG agreed on, then the IETF's
process has been met and the IETF is contractually bound to issue the
Standard - PERIOD. No ands, no if's and no buts... & no fricking whining
"but its patented". It just doesnt matter now whether its patented or
not, the WG wasn't decieved and they agreed to do the work. If the IETF
has a contract with the WG and its sponsors to issue that standard then
it must meet that and anyone interfering with the issueance of a
Technology Standard with a patent as its basis without participating in
the WG's operations, is interfering with that contracts completion.
Todd
This rabble rousing about "methods" is nonsense,
generated by Hallam-Baker, Crocker, Chiappa, and a number of other
people who are known to be either opposed to the FSF or pro-patent. They
are trying to make an argument that might be accepted by anti-patent
people such as Mr. Bormann, while lying about both the IETF process and
about their real motives.
RFC 2026 defines last call as:
Last-Call - A public comment period used to gage the level of
consensus about the reasonableness of a proposed standards action.
(see section 6.1.2)
The FSF, and everyone else, has a __RIGHT__ to participate in a PUBLIC
COMMENT PERIOD.
Another argument that has been made is that it is somehow invalid to
oppose the draft for patent licensing reasons. The existance of patents
and terms of patents licenses must be disclosed according to RFC3979,
and according to the assurance made by every author in the preface of a
draft. So these reasons are proper reasons to oppose a draft.
When pro-patent forces argue that RFC3979 isn't the policy of the IETF,
they are merely being dishonest.
--Dean
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009, TSG wrote:
Carsten Bormann wrote:
http://www.fsf.org/news/reoppose-tls-authz-standard
While I have a lot of sympathy for the cause, I have very little
sympathy for the methods.
I have NO sympathy for the cause.
Rendering a mailing list that might be useful for actually resolving
the issue inoperative by a "campaign" is idiotic.
Somebody from I* (the IETF chair may not be the right person this
time) should call them and explain that this is not the way to win
friends and impress people.
Gruesse, Carsten
PS: kill-filing messages CCed to campai...@ietf.org might help a bit.
I don't know if the procedures allow to do this at the mailing list
level.
Boy do I agree with you - The creation of a standard *** should *** have
nothing to do with IP rights or licensing. The creation of any standard
should JUST be based on whether proper vetting happened and whether the
minimum number of ports was created and formally tested for
interoperability. Anyone - and I mean ANYONE should be able to get a
Standard by making the steps happen.
Todd Glassey
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
