IPR and I-D boilerplate
Hi. I've recently had another close encounter with the patent system and notions of prior art. It occurs to me that we could make a slight modification to the Internet Draft structure and encourage including an additional bit of information that would be quite helpful in some cases: Lets say we have draft-ietf-foo-bar-09.txt. It bears a date, but usually gives no clue about when the basic ideas were first exposed to the Internet community. For determining when an idea became part of the common knowledge and practice of experts in the field, that information is all-important. So I think we should encourage Internet-Draft editors and authors to list a revision history when they consider it important. This could be as simple as a note similar to that used by many journals, i.e., a line that says first version posted 2000.04.01 or first submitted 1999.12.25. Or the author could choose to list each version number, the date, and perhaps a brief summary of major ideas introduced. And, where it seems appropriate to the authors or the community, it seems to me that we might reasonably ask the RFC Editor to carry these data forward into the archival form of the document (if an RFC is actually produced). Note that I am _not_ recommending a rule or requirement. Only that we examine the advantages of having history and tracking information available in cases where I-Ds are documenting protocol ideas that could be subject to IPR claims and that, when having it seems useful to someone, that we encourage documenting and keeping it in very public ways. john
Re: IPR and I-D boilerplate
On Thu, 27 Jun 2002 08:30:21 EDT, John C Klensin said: 2000.04.01 or first submitted 1999.12.25. Or the author could choose to list each version number, the date, and perhaps a brief summary of major ideas introduced. You'd have to do this, in case the prior art was something introduced between -03 and -04 due to working group discussion -- Valdis Kletnieks Computer Systems Senior Engineer Virginia Tech msg08668/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
RE: PPP RFCs
Start with 1661 - PPP 1331 The Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP) for the Transmission of Multi-protocol Datagrams over Point-to-Point Links 1332 IPCP (N/w Control Protocol) 1333 PPP Link Quality Monitoring 1334 PPP Authentication Protocols. 1994 PPP Challenge Handshake Authentication Protocol (CHAP) Hope this helps. Thanks, Srivatsan -Original Message- From: Bill Cunningham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thu 6/27/2002 1:10 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Subject:PPP RFCs Are there RFC's or drafts on the various LCP's that PPP uses or the Network Control Protocol of PPP?
Re: IPR and I-D boilerplate
--On Thursday, 27 June, 2002 11:12 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 27 Jun 2002 08:30:21 EDT, John C Klensin said: 2000.04.01 or first submitted 1999.12.25. Or the author could choose to list each version number, the date, and perhaps a brief summary of major ideas introduced. You'd have to do this, in case the prior art was something introduced between -03 and -04 due to working group discussion Again, I am less interested in a firm rule (or discussions or such rules) in this case as much as I am about giving someone a strong indication that there might have been something published of interest, something that they had best track down before swearing that they have good reason to believe that no prior art exists. Whether, at that point, they try to obtain the old I-D (and I don't think this provides any justification for re-visiting our policies on availability of those documents), or contact the author, or believe that everything in the last version was in the first one or was obvious from it, or pretend ignorance, is really a separate matter. john
FW: [AAA-WG]: Request for IETF last call on Diameter-11 and Transport-07 drafts
Some time ago, Randy Bush [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote: The AAA WG has completed WG last call on the Diameter Base-10 and Transport-07 documents. As a result of WG last call comments, no changes were made to the Transport document, and 20 changes were made to the Diameter Base document, with 5 comments rejected. as ad, i will not be passing this to the iesg for review. there is one comment that has not been addressed by -11, vendor-specific commands. as i have repeatedly said, if i was to pass this to the iesg, it is a sure show-stopper. rather than saying it all over again, can folk please review the mailing list archive on this. The archives are available again, so I attempted to review them. However, it appears that the archives are incomplete: I couldn't find a single message in them on this topic from any IESG member. essentially, the iesg has a hot- button about mandatory vendor commands. Given the above, I (and perhaps the rest of the WG) would _really_ appreciate it if you (or anyone else on the IESG) would take the time to explain 1) where in the current document mandatory vendor commands are specified and 2) how the mechanisms in the current protocol are dangerous to interoperability. It would be _extra_ wonderful if this explanation had some technical qualities (as opposed to hot flashes) and evinced that the explainer had actually read the document in question. randy
