Subject: Re: draft-ietf-wg-guidelines-04.txt

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 10:52:23 +0300 (EEST)

On Wed, 28 May 2003, Scott W Brim wrote:
> A new draft-wg-guidelines has been sent in, and is now available at
> http://www.employees.org/~swb/iprwg/draft-ietf-ipr-wg-guidelines-04.txt
> 
> I think everyone's issues are resolved.  We'll see.

As you may remember, I've argued that the CDI example is very bad one.
It seems to clearly have been a forum where some vendors working on CDI 
are jointly pushing their own agenda, with little interest for IETF-wide 
participation or even useful function.

So, I think the subsection on CDI could be removed or at the minimum,
lessons learned changed.

Recently, the IESG seem to have gotten it too (for which I applaud them), 
from the latest minutes:

5. Working Group News We Can Use
5.1. WG Closing
	o Content Distribution Internetworking (cdi)
	Token: Hardie, Ted
	Approved. 
	Ted Hardie to send a note for the minutes documenting why the IESG
	chose to close the WG while some documents are in RFC Editor's Queue.  Ted to prepare
	the WG Action: WG to Conclude Announcement for the Secretariat to send.
	
	NOTE: Ted Hardie, Area Advisor for the CDI working group, asked that
 	the IESG agree to close this group. Historically, working groups
 	have not closed while they have documents active in the RFC editor's
 	queue. This group does have two informational documents still
 	in the that queue. Ted asked for a variance from that
 	precedent in this case, as the working group has ceased to serve
 	as a viable forum for discussion of these issues; any issues raised
 	by the RFC editor will need to be handled by the editors. Further,
 	the documents at issue are not protocol standards, as they
 	provide a set of scenarios and an abstract model. The IESG agreed
 	to the closure of the group, pending a note drafting the reasoning for
 	this being included in the working group closure notice. Ted agreed
 	to draft that note and send it to the Secretariat for the closure notice.

 	Separately, the IESG agreed that a more definite set of procedures
 	for working group closure is needed. Allison and Ted
 	volunteered to send draft text to Harald for inclusion in his
 	procedures draft.	

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

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

---

From: Scott W Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 07:45:42 -0400

On Tue, Jun 10, 2003 10:52:23AM +0300, Pekka Savola allegedly wrote:
> It seems to clearly have been a forum where some vendors working on
> CDI are jointly pushing their own agenda, with little interest for
> IETF-wide participation or even useful function.
> 

Do you know the people who were involved?  I don't like to see them
(all) characterized that way.  

However, clearly this isn't the best case study.

I could take it out, but I would like to have some decent example of a
working group in which there was a lot of IPR but where people knew,
from experience, that they could trust each other to offer good
licensing terms.

Can anyone on the list suggest an alternative case study?  If so, soon,
please.  If not, I guess I'll remove this one.

> Recently, the IESG seem to have gotten it too (for which I applaud them), 

..

>  	... as the working group has ceased to serve
>  	as a viable forum for discussion of these issues

I think this is literally true.  Ask Michael Speer, for example, who
wrote the architecture draft and couldn't get anyone to comment on it.
CDI used to fill large rooms, but interest just evaporated.

.swb