Hi Sabine, thanks for confirming this. I have set the „replaces“ field in the datatracker now correctly and the IPR shows up respectively.
Vijay, can you update the shepherd write up and re-run the wg last call with a note to the working group that this IPR exists? Sabine, maybe you can also address the other comments from the IESG in a new revision before we re-start WG last call, especially the use of examples IP addresses as flagged by Suresh and Adam, and use of https as flagged by Alissa and Adam. I think Ben’s discuss needs further discussion before we can update. Please reply to his email as well as soon as possible! Thanks! Mirja > Am 06.12.2018 um 19:31 schrieb Randriamasy, Sabine (Nokia - FR/Paris-Saclay) > <[email protected]>: > > Hello, > > I confirm that the IPR attached to draft-randriamasy-alto-cost-calendar still > applies to draft-ietf-alto-cost-calendar. > I also attach the IPR declaration that I sent on June 7th > Please let me know what I can do to help resolving this issue. > > Sabine > > > > From: Alvaro Retana <[email protected]> > Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2018 4:14 PM > To: Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF) <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; The IESG > <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Gurbani, Vijay (Nokia - US/Naperville) > <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [alto] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on > draft-ietf-alto-cost-calendar-09: (with DISCUSS) > > Perfect! > > Thanks! > > Alvaro. > > On December 6, 2018 at 8:53:38 AM, Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF) > ([email protected]) wrote: > > 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. > <Mail-Anhang.eml> _______________________________________________ alto mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
