Re: Proposed text for the concatenation

[Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>]

> Let's treat all GMPLS specifications associated with non-standard
> transport plane features as proprietary features

i extremely intentionally do not wish to stick my size nines into what
feature should be in which category, or into which features are good,
bad, etc.

but 'standard' is pretty clearly defined in ietf (rfcs 2026, 2800),
itu, ...  processes.  [ it has been observed that much of the internet
runs on documents which are not yet full standards according to 2026 ]

'non-standard' would seem to obviously be the set which does not meet
the above criteria.  non-standard features might be proprietary or
not, the issues are orthogonal.  non-standard features might be
implemented by one or more vendors or not, the issues are orthogonal.
the point is that no standard describes them.

'proprietary' means controlling intellectual property rights are held
by one entity/vendor/..., and that the vendor has blocking ipr which
they will not reasonably license to all.  that vendor may or may not
actually implement it.  sometimes proprietary feature licenses are
traded, so only a small vendor club implements them.  but this is
still rare.

randy