From fecframe-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jan 02 14:59:47 2006 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EtVqN-000608-5u; Mon, 02 Jan 2006 14:59:47 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EtVqJ-000602-Pu for fecframe@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 02 Jan 2006 14:59:46 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA09166 for ; Mon, 2 Jan 2006 14:58:31 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200601021958.OAA09166@ietf.org> Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62] ident=mailnull) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EtVvQ-0003cL-Ev for fecframe@ietf.org; Mon, 02 Jan 2006 15:05:02 -0500 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=psg.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.60 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1EtVqF-000NBJ-5a; Mon, 02 Jan 2006 19:59:39 +0000 To: "Stephan Wenger" Subject: IPR Language - Re: [Fecframe] Re: Comments of FECFrame Charter Date: Mon, 02 Jan 2006 11:59:39 -0800 From: Allison Mankin X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: bb8f917bb6b8da28fc948aeffb74aa17 Cc: fecframe@ietf.org X-BeenThere: fecframe@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: mankin@psg.com List-Id: Discussion of FEC Framework List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: fecframe-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: fecframe-bounces@ietf.org Stephan wrote Tue, 06 Dec 2005 20:22:24: > While I agree in principle with Gorry's statement below, I would > prefer NOT to burden the charter with aspects of the IPR situation. > It should be up to the WG to decide whether known IPR is > sufficiently beneficial for the Internet to allow its inclusion. > My two cents, > Stephan (Speaking only for myself) {Gorry had written about wanting the fec framework itself to be as unencumbered as possible, not to have known IPR restrictions). Stephan, this is right. We don't want to put the IPR issues into the charter explicitly. But on the other hand, the sense of the room in the BOF was that there had to be work on the IPR language about the fec framework draft before people would be comfortable with a charter depending so much on the draft, so this isn't putting the IPR explicitly into the charter, but requiring resolution of IPR issues before moving the charter, based on consensus. People should now review the completely fresh IPR language that Digital Fountain came up with, announced by Mark. It is comparable to IPR language that the TCPM WG found manageable (based on a WG consensus call) in a past TSV story. Mark sent his message on December 13. I'd like to know what people think so we can perhaps put the charter forward towards WG creation this month (possibly send it to IESG+ IAB review that would run Jan 12-19). Getting all one's charter comments in now would be good too. Allison _______________________________________________ Fecframe mailing list Fecframe@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe