Subject: draft-ietf-ipr-wg-guidelines-05.txt

From: Scott W Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 09:35:36 -0400

I just submitted draft-ietf-ipr-wg-guidelines-05.txt.  The main change
is the removal of the CDI case study.  There are some other very small
editorial changes.  It's available now at
http://www.employees.org/~swb/iprwg/draft-ietf-ipr-wg-guidelines-05.txt

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

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 06:49:01 -0700

Scott - how about doing Rev 6 and removing all the case studies and instead
replacing them with a list of the criteria and concerns that are be
addressed. I look at the Case Studies as a justification for this action and
none is needed.  An IPR policy is critical and what is more important in
justifying the IPR document, is in understanding clearly and concisely what
is proposed and how this affects today's processes and models.

Todd

---

From: Scott W Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 09:56:12 -0400

On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 06:49:01AM -0700, todd glassey allegedly wrote:
> Scott - how about doing Rev 6 and removing all the case studies and
> instead replacing them with a list of the criteria and concerns that
> are be addressed. I look at the Case Studies as a justification for
> this action and none is needed.  An IPR policy is critical and what is
> more important in justifying the IPR document, is in understanding
> clearly and concisely what is proposed and how this affects today's
> processes and models.

That's what I wanted to do first, but people suggested including the
case studies to ground it in the "running code" of the IETF.  
_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 17:44:19 +0300 (EEST)

> http://www.employees.org/~swb/iprwg/draft-ietf-ipr-wg-guidelines-05.txt

FWIW, even though I'd like to give a bit different guidance to the WG's,
the -05 version of the document is good enough for me at least.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 09:03:28 -0700

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Scott W Brim" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 6:56 AM
Subject: Re: draft-ietf-ipr-wg-guidelines-05.txt

> case studies to ground it in the "running code" of the IETF.

Hmm - I would have argued that this makes the document linked to those
examples and it forces the reader to indepentantly build workflows for them
which are easily misinterpreted as we have seen in the trouble coming to
concensus.

I would recommend that rather that create areas that are intentionally open
to interpretation  that for IP issues a more supportable policy is to leave
no stone unturned or undefined. That means anything that is capable of being
"personally interpreted" needs to be eliminated.

My general experience with contracts and their abuse, is that this is not
the place to allow "wiggle room".

Todd