Harald Alvestrand <harald(_at_)alvestrand(_dot_)no> writes:
3.3.a.E gives this authorization, but excluding patents.
There seems to be disagreement about that. Is there support for
updating BCP 78 to clarify the above?
There is, in the form of approving -outbound and -inbound. See
resolution of issues from San Diego.
I don't think draft-legg-xed-asd etc should have to wait for that
effort.
If those two documents (one of which isn't drafted yet, one of which
hasn't been republished) don't satisfy you on this point, a comment
pointing that out is in order.
A short update to BCP 78 would solve the problem for the above
document set faster, which is in last call now, so yes, a mild
dissatisfaction regarding the timing of those documents, as a solution
to this last call comment, seems appropriate.
Adding the text that I proposed to draft-legg-xed-asd would resolve
this immediately, without any need to modify BCP 78. We can work out
which choice to use later on in the review process of
draft-legg-xed-asd.
But that particular door has been flat on the ground for a year or
more, I believe. Stop trying to bash it in.
Well, this discussion started out as a last call comment, and the
issue is highly relevant in that context, since it affects how useful
that document is. I'm well aware that this has been discussed many
times in this WG. Therefor, I did not copy the WG on the discussion.
Someone else brought the discussion to the IPR list.
I'm moving this back to the list used for last call comments, as I
originally only meant this discussion to apply to draft-legg-xed-asd
and nothing else.
/Simon
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf