thanks for the reply. Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <[email protected]> wrote: > It is largely unwritten Michael,
> That's ultimately a WG decision, and part of that decision is that we
> want to assess if the IPR on CGA is an issue or not.
> My take is that we should adopt the work if we agree on the overall
> idea, knowing that CGA is one way of getting there; and then refine
> this as a WG.
a) Hosnieh's proposals
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-rafiee-6man-ssas/
might not suffer from the same IPR.
b) I wonder what is the expiry on the IPR. CGA is more than a decade old now.
--
Michael Richardson <[email protected]>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ 6lo mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo
