On Wed, Jul 05, 2023 at 1:58 PM, Patrice Brissette <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Warren, Paul, > > I just submit a v11 version removing that section. I was quite surprise as > you were about this section. It seems like it came from an old template. > … and I've cleared my DISCUSS. Thank you for addressing it so quickly! W > Regards, > Patrice Brissette > Distinguished Engineer > Cisco Systems > > On 2023-07-05, 13:38, "Warren Kumari via Datatracker" <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > Warren Kumari has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-bess-evpn-virtual-eth-segment-10: 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/about/groups/iesg/statements/ > handling-ballot-positions/ <https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/ > statements/handling-ballot-positions/> for more information about how to > handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-virtual-eth-segment/ > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/ > draft-ietf-bess-evpn-virtual-eth-segment/> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > DISCUSS: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Be ye not afraid - this DISCUSS should be easy to address. Please see > https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/ > handling-ballot-positions/ <https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/ > statements/handling-ballot-positions/> for some information on DISCUSS > ballots.... > > Like Paul Wouters I find Section 9 ("Intellectual Property > Considerations") troubling, but I'm sufficiently troubled that I feel it > deserves a DISCUSS. I > *think* that what the text says is compatible with what is in BCP79 / the > copyright boilerplate, but: 1: IANAL and 2: if it's exactly the same, why > is this section here? > > If it *not* the same, then I think that this requires some discussions > with the IETF Trust / lawyers / etc... > > I strongly suggest removing it, or, if it is needed for some sort of > corporate > / legal reason that it be justified / explained. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Thank you very much for writing this document. >
_______________________________________________ BESS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
