[ - sieve(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org ]
On 1/26/12 10:15 AM, SM wrote:
Hi Pete,
At 08:08 26-01-2012, Pete Resnick wrote:
As I've mentioned to others, since I'm one of the people who will have
to judge the consensus on this question, my comments will remain
strictly based on the facts of the events as I know them and on the
relevant IETF procedures. It is up to the IETF community
The status of the memo in the drafts have this statement:
"This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79."
Have the authors been asked whether they have any issue with the above?
The is a question in the write-up: "Has an IPR disclosure related to
this document been filed?" Has the Document Shepherd been asked about
that before the Second Last Call?
The minutes from the last WG session does not mention who chaired the
session. Did the WG Chair bring the Note Well to the attention of the WG?
In my opinion, we need to think more creatively about ways to encourage
compliance with the IPR disclosure rules. Tim Polk and I wrote an I-D on
the topic last year. Feedback would be welcome.
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-polk-ipr-disclosure-00
Peter
--
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf