Subject: Status of IETF Plenary discussions ?

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 12:14:03 -0000

Scott,

This is a *genuine* question, as I don't understand the process here.

You wrote:
	"one thing that I do not recall seeing on this (sometimes too busy)
list is
	the fact that, for security-related technology, a discussion at an
IETF
	plenary meeting endorced the idea that all mandarory-to-implement
security 
	technologies (such as encryption technologies) should be RF or
IPR-free

	this was a number of years ago and thus are, to me, part of the
existing
	IPR practice that should be documented in teh new IDs"

	What is the status of a Plenary discussion / endorsement ?  How does
it fit with the rule that the list is the final arbiter of consensus ?

	( I am under the impression that the normal route for publication is
the I-D & RFC route, or statements that come from the IESG, IAB, Nomcom,
etc.)

	Regards,

	Graham Travers

	International Standards Manager
	BTexact Technologies

	e-mail:   [email-masked]
	tel:          +44(0) 1359 235086
	mobile:  +44(0) 7808 502536
	fax:          +44(0) 1359 235087

	HWB279, PO Box 200,London, N18 1ZF, UK

	BTexact Technologies is a trademark of British Telecommunications
plc
	Registered office: 81 Newgate Street London EC1A 7AJ
	Registered in England no. 1800000

	This electronic message contains information from British
Telecommunications plc which may be privileged or confidential. The
information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) or entity
named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any
disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information
is prohibited. If you have received this electronic message in error, please
notify us by telephone or email (to the numbers or address above)
immediately.

_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

---

From: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 07:29:55 -0500 (EST)

> the I-D & RFC route, or statements that come from the IESG, IAB, Nomcom,

not an unreasonable question, but in this case one that referrs to
a decision taken quite a while ago at a time when the IESG was not
at all good at sending out statements of its decisions 

my take is that the plenary disccussion in this case provided 
background information for the IESG (and in particular the Security
ADs) and that the IESG made a decision based on that information 
and its own discussions.  

this push to IPR-free in the case of mandatory-to-implement
security technology has been "running code" for quite a while
(maybe as long as 8 years - I have not been able to dig up 
just when the discussion happened, Jeff Schiller thinks it was
at teh Danvers IETF meeting in 1995) so fits this WGs charter
to "Document existing IPR practice in the IETF"

Scott