On 1/26/2012 9:15 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?
True it is important but the issue here again is the IP landscape and
transparency.
What if they say NO and they will not sign. How does the IETF deal with
this as a liability. The IETF says' Uh gee we are not responsible for
the fact we intentionally and with direct participation created a
system which makes it impossible to retract or invalidate the use
license we issued to the world no matter what'
Its real clear that is the effect of the publishing process the issue is
what people think they are accountable for here.
Todd
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?
Regards,
-sm
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
--
Todd S. Glassey
This is from my personal email account and any materials from this
account come with personal disclaimers.
Further I OPT OUT of any and all commercial emailings.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf