Subject: RE-ISSUE 1: 5.6

From: "Olaf M. Kolkman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 09:59:21 +0100

Dear Colleagues,

I should have known that introducing 3 various choices, with one  
choice providing all sorts of variations would not decrease but  
increase entropy. Besides I made the thread ambiguous by rephrasing  
the question mid-way.

So let me re-issue the question with less ambiguity.

First let me stress that this is will be a requirements document; it  
will be used to make trade-offs in the case that there are no  
technically solid en well engineered proposals that meet all  
requirements. It was Suresh who phrased that eloquently as:

> Once we do get down to comparing different proposals against the  
> set of requirements its quite possible that we may find each  
> approach lacking in some respect. I don't think the intent of the  
> requirements document was to impose an "a-priori option abandonment  
> formulation" of any one approach. From what I understand, its a  
> collection of requirements that the working group *itself* has  
> proposed at some point or the other.

(I read Simon's revised view and Thomas's arguments to be in this  
spirit --- and then arguing for dropping the paragraph altogether.)

Maybe the editors can capture this in the introduction of the draft.

On the other hand, I do think there is sufficient support in this  
group to capture the requirement for non-IPR as _one_ _of_ _the_  
_tradeoffs_. Mentioning specific license text makes us rat-hole and  
since I have not seen a lot of resistance to Paul's latest proposal I  
would like to ask the group to (re)state their (non)-consent with the  
text below.

>
> 5.2 No Intellectual Property Encumbrance
>
>     Because trust anchor rollover is considered "mandatory-to- 
> implement",
>     section 8 of [RFC3979] requires that the technology solution  
> chosen must
>     be unencumbered or must be available under royalty-free terms.
>
>     For this purpose, "royalty-free" is defined as follows: world  
> wide,
>     perpetual right to use, without fee, in commerce or otherwise,  
> where "use"
>     includes descriptions of algorithms, distribution and/or use of  
> hardware
>     implementations, distribution and/or use of software systems in  
> source
>     and/or binary form, in all DNS or DNSSEC applications including  
> registry,
>     registrar, domain name service including authority, recursion,  
> caching,
>     forwarding, stub resolver, or similar.
>
>     In summary, no implementor, distributor, or operator of the  
> technology
>     chosen for trust anchor management shall be expected or  
> required to pay
>     any fee to any IPR holder for the right to implement,  
> distribute, or
>     operate a system which includes the chosen mandatory-to-implement
>     solution.

Kind regards,

--Olaf

-----------------------------------------------------------
Olaf M. Kolkman
NLnet Labs
http://www.nlnetlabs.nl/

---

From: Brett Carr <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 12:19:35 +0100 (CET)

> would like to ask the group to (re)state their (non)-consent with the

I agree with the text as written.

Brett..

--
Brett Carr                              Ripe Network Coordination Centre
System Engineer -- Operations Group     Singel 258 Amsterdam NL

--
to unsubscribe send a message to [email-masked] with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>

---

From: Andras Salamon <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 16:34:50 +0200

> >    operate a system which includes the chosen mandatory-to-implement

I support this phrasing.

-- Andras Salamon                   [email-masked]

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 10:05:36 -0700

> would like to ask the group to (re)state their (non)-consent with the  

FWIW, I'm fine with it.