--On 19. mai 2003 23:04 -0700 Bill Fenner <fenner@research.att.com> wrote:
Mumble.http://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/APPLE-SSM.txt Apparently Stuart realized a patent that Apple had could apply to SSM, so had them file an IPR disclosure. Now one WG participant, and the chairs, are worried about moving SSM forward on the standards track if Apple won't promise royalty-free licensing.
that's right - for the formalisms. But we would also ask Hugh to assure us that the WG had consensus to publish the document as an IETF standard after the IPR statement was known to the group.Hugh Holbrook, one of the WG chairs, asked:If we put this forward as a standard with the current IPR statement as it stands, do you have any idea what is likely to happen? Pekka told me he would oppose it going forward as an IETF standards document unless Apple changes their disclosure to include Royalty-Free licensing, and I'm sure there are others in the same camp. Maybe even me.My impression is that the answer to the first question would be that we would make sure the IPR boilerplate was present in the RFC and nothing more.
Yes - the Entrust patent (on putting CRL locations into certificates, I think). I'm sure Steve and Russ will remember. Jeff Schiller was, I believe, instrumental in getting the message across; the killer argument (as reported by Jeff) was "if you don't give RF rights, nobody will ever listen to anything you say in the IETF, ever again".Further questions from Hugh:Is there any policy or precedent for giving an ultimatum to a company to demand RF licensing or we kill the standard? And if so, who has the authority to do this? Me? The IESG? The IAB?
we-the-IESG have no authority.As far as I know, all we have the authority to do is ask for a statement. On the other hand, the WG chair has the *ability* to give an ultimatum by not forwarding the document. I dunno about *authority*.