Re: Motions before the WG - Was Re: Software for PKI

["todd glassey" <todd.glassey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Rich Salz" <rsalz@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: "todd glassey" <todd.glassey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <ietf-pkix@xxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2001 5:20 PM
Subject: Re: Motions before the WG - Was Re: Software for PKI


> > The IETF's allowing this to
> > happen is part and parcel to supporting it actively.
>
> I don't think it's like trademark in that it requires an active defense.

Actually I disagree and think it is. Each individual filing represents a
piece of IP and that IP may have extreme value in and of itself. It
certainly has the value of whatever it costs to submit.

>
> > Comment #2    - If an RFC has commercial value, and the WG Chair's stop
> > I-D's from becoming RFC's then they have done damage and it is likely
> > restraint of trade.
>
> I thought you were using #1 as the proof for the if in #2.

I was, but there is more substantiation that an RFC has real tngible value,
especially if a commercial effort keeps track of its employees time working
on it and their particpation costs within the industry. At the very least
the value of the RFC is what it cost in the real world to field it. Then
there is the Intellectual Property value of the submission as well.

Either way there is no denying that there is a real-world cost at minimum
for the participation in the IETF and so any filing has some cost valuation.

>
> > If I can reference a RFC like a Standard then what pray tell do I need
the
> > ISOC or the IESG for?
>
> Exactly.

So WG Chairs - what do we need the ISOC and IESG for with regard to PKIX -
this seems to me an agreement that PKIX should be spun off unless I am
brain-dead.

>
> plonk.
> /r$
>