Respecting Apple's IPR, I think that would be "sigh, - Apple(r) brand
autocorrect functionality helping again."
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf [mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Scott O.
Bradner
Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2016 3:17 PM
To: Jari Arkko
Cc: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: Last Call on draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-08.txt ("Intellectual
Property Rights in IETF Technology")
sigh - apple helping again
s/reject/respect/
(although some people might believe the 1st version)
Scott
On Mar 30, 2016, at 6:13 PM, Scott O. Bradner <sob(_at_)sobco(_dot_)com>
wrote:
we were trying to reject the consensus we heard but if someone has a better
way to say this we would be happy to use it
Scott
On Mar 30, 2016, at 5:19 PM, Jari Arkko
<jari(_dot_)arkko(_at_)piuha(_dot_)net> wrote:
Trying to take this into a practical direction.
I think the current sentence in the draft is fairly broad, and doesn't
necessarily match practical capabilities that chairs or ADs have, as
explained by Spencer and others. The issue is, if Spencer doesn't read all
documents on the other half of the area, or if Jari doesn't read all the
documents because he delegates some of the review task to a directorate, how
would we know what to declare, even if we were personally aware of IPR on a
topic? It may of course be that once we read a document later (such as in
last call or as part of a final IESG review), you may finally realise that a
declaration is necessary. But, as noted, not even that is necessarily always
guaranteed.
Jari