Hi Alvaro, thanks for detecting this. I wasn’t aware of this!
I will check with authors and chairs, however it could also be the cause that the IPR was not applicable to the wg doc anymore, as there have been quite some changes to the -01 version of the draft (when the IPR was filed) and the adopted version. If that is not the case, we will re-issue wg and IETF last call and bring it back. Mirja > Am 05.12.2018 um 22:53 schrieb Alvaro Retana <[email protected]>: > > Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-alto-cost-calendar-09: Discuss > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this > introductory paragraph, however.) > > > Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-alto-cost-calendar/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > DISCUSS: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > This is a process DISCUSS. > > This document replaces draft-randriamasy-alto-cost-calendar, but this > information is not reflected in the datatracker. The individual draft has an > IPR declaration attached to it [1], but the failure to link the two documents > has resulted in the IPR indication not carrying over. The direct effect is > that the IETF Last Call [2] explicitly says that "No IPR declarations have > been > submitted directly on this I-D." > > The Shepherd writeup says that "The entire author team has confirmed > conformance with BCP 78/79 with the shephered." -- but that doesn't indicate > whether IPR is present or not, just conformance. In looking through the > mailing list archive, I couldn't find mention of the IPR at adoption [3] [4] > or > at WGLC [5]. > > The declaration was made early in the process [6], and there was no discussion > in the WG about it. I can see how it would be easy to overlook. > > Nonetheless, it is necessary for the WG (and the IETF as a whole) to > explicitly > consider the declaration before proceeding with the publication of this > document. > > [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2392/ > [2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/alto/LI01TfoTCnJRDImEUXA-9x8KsZ4 > [3] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/alto/xFErWArHhpF-0ZVR_1BAhgzRj3k > [4] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/alto/-D7cj6qoD-Q3ye3rpuj8li2xWms > [5] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/alto/67W_XuMfu7JMXQEEZFLkulw_xBI > [6] > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipr-announce/lnZ65z15_Dn3bylJp7h9rGHxZFk > > > > > _______________________________________________ > alto mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto _______________________________________________ alto mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
