On 12/07/2022 18:44, Linda Dunbar wrote:
Sue,
Thank you very much for the offer.
The unsolved comments are from Tom Petch: Re: [I2nsf] WGLC for
draft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm-16<https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/i2nsf/d_Wk5fH35Jo_cdz4D0QZN5VNhFA/>
There are several responses to address Tom Petch's comments. Just Tom hasn't
sent feedback if he is satisfied with the response.
Linda,
I am sorry I have not got back to you; I did not realise that I was
holding things up. Meanwhile, another problem has arise. Most of the
activity on the WG mailing list recently has been ten IPR claims, one of
which is against this I-D, for an unpublished patent, with possible
Royalty/Fee.
Similar claims were made three years ago, before I was involved, and the
WG pushed back on this, that the usual reciprocity clause would be ok,
possible Royalty/Fee would not be. Were those who pushed back three
years ago to see the latest claims, I would expect them to push back
again. To see the terms of these latest claims I find disappointing.
I do not understand the details of the IPR claims; I am used to a claim
being made against each successive version of an I-D up to an including
the RFC. Here, some at least of the claims would appear to relate to
earlier versions and not the current one but since much of the text is
in common, the choice of version seems irrelevant. Also, some of the
claims specify the relevant sections and one would appear to include the
IANA Considerations which seems unusual while some of the claims are in
CJK script which I do not read.
I realise that the IETF takes no position on IPR claims, that the WG
members have to decide whether or not to proceed with the work in the
presence of a claim. On one such previous occasion, the WG was
satisfied that there was prior art which would invalidate the claim and
so the work went ahead regardless of the claim; such a step is not
possible with an unpublished patent.
July is a hectic time for me so I shall look at the revised I-Ds but not
just yet. Whether or not I want to participate in the presence of the
IPR claims, I am unsure.
Tom Petch
Linda
From: Susan Hares <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2022 12:21 PM
To: Linda Dunbar <[email protected]>; [email protected]
Subject: RE: [I2nsf] need more review and support to close the WGLC for
draft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm
Linda:
I will review the document by Thursday (7/14) and send in a review of the
document. Would you let me know what WG LC comments were not addressed?
Cheers, Sue
From: I2nsf <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> On Behalf
Of Linda Dunbar
Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2022 1:17 PM
To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: [I2nsf] need more review and support to close the WGLC for
draft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm
I2NF WG,
draft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm WGLC was inconclusive due to lack
of support and some LC comments not properly addressed. There appeared to be
limited reviews of the document during the WGLC
See the discussion history: [I2nsf] WGLC for
draft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm-16<https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmailarchive.ietf.org%2Farch%2Fmsg%2Fi2nsf%2FMFOohjnJ9fbylLB9eyccMRhrp04%2F&data=05%7C01%7Clinda.dunbar%40futurewei.com%7Cc95feb0ac382419474b808da642adfd0%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C637932432560667469%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=f9Jlz0HgQw7NO%2BKer356WyaN9toprO8WCPEUBGhkAXI%3D&reserved=0>
To proceed to publication more reviews and support from the WG for publication
is needed.
We really appreciate more people reviewing the document, especially the people
who are not the authors.
Thank you
Linda Dunbar
_______________________________________________
I2nsf mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf
