(Adding Mirja directly)
On 29 Jun 2016, at 11:46, Vijay K. Gurbani wrote:
On 06/29/2016 11:28 AM, Ben Campbell wrote:
I wasn't trying to judge the applicability so much as the intent, but
I
take your point. My real concern at this point is that the working
group
has the opportunity to decide how to proceed.
Ben, all: So, is that the answer to my previous query on what is the
expected process to relieve the burden of such IPR declarations and
move the work ahead? If it falls in the purview of the WG, then
certainly Jan and I can drive the discussions in the WG.
Hi Vijay,
That's really up to the chairs and the responsible AD (Mirja), but since
I started this:
There's not really a fixed process that I am aware of. In general, the
point of IPR disclosures are to allow working groups to make informed
decisions about progressing work. While the working group shouldn't try
to determine validity, or negotiate terms, it's reasonable for it to
discuss if they are willing to progress the draft in light of the IPR.
Due to the timing of the disclosure, It's probably also reasonable to
assume that the working group was not aware of the IPR at the time they
formed to consensus to publish.
One approach might be to point out the disclosure to the alto list, and
ask if there are objections to progressing the draft. (I am agonistic to
whether there is a need to re-run part of the IETF last call.
All that being said, I think the real answer is that you should discuss
this with Mirja to decide how to proceed.
Thanks!
Ben.
Thanks,
- vijay
--
Vijay K. Gurbani, Bell Laboratories, Nokia Networks
1960 Lucent Lane, Rm. 9C-533, Naperville, Illinois 60563 (USA)
Email: [email protected] / [email protected]
Web: http://ect.bell-labs.com/who/vkg/ | Calendar:
http://goo.gl/x3Ogq
_______________________________________________
alto mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
