> -----Original Message----- > From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > Michael Richardson > Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 2:36 PM > To: ietf@ietf.org > Subject: Re: Second Last Call: <draft-ietf-sieve-notify-sip-message- > 08.txt> (Sieve Notification Mechanism: SIP MESSAGE) to Proposed > Standard > > At this point, I do not have a clear idea of what the set of outcomes > could be. I think that they can include: > 1) not publishing the document. > 2) revising the document to remove/work-around the encumbered work > 3) some legal action to attend to anul the patent (which might or > might not succeed). > 4) go ahead and publish things as they are.
I also thought about suggesting a DNP or a standing DISCUSS or something until the license terms are made more IETF-friendly, unless the WG can find a way to do equivalent work that is unencumbered, but then the WG might not have the energy left. The document could be restricted to Experimental status, but that presumes the status matters as much as or more than the RFC number. I don't know if that's true or not in this case. Those only cover the document though, and not the offender(s). Still chewing on an opinion about that. -MSK _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
