I would like to see this document progress and, given its general nature (mostly a statement of requirements and listing of previously documented characteristics of alternatives), I think there is really no chance that it has any new IPR in it.
I support option 1. I have personally sent dozens of emails over a period of months to the non-responsive person. I received precisely one response over a month ago in which they indicated a general lack of interest in the document but did say they would look at it. Despite multiple pings, I have heard nothing since. If they continue to be non-responsive and listed as a contributor, special action will have to be taken to get through AUTH48 also. However, if the WG will not go with option 1, we could go with option 2. I would support that if it is the WG's choice. Thanks, Donald =============================== Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA [email protected] On Fri, Jul 8, 2022 at 8:51 AM Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB) <[email protected]> wrote: > > NVo3 WG, > > > > The chairs believe there is consensus to publish draft-ietf-nvo3-encap as an > informational RFC. However, we are missing an IPR declaration from one of the > co-authors listed in the Contributors section. > > > > Despite repeated attempts to contact them over several weeks through multiple > channels, we have not received an IPR declaration. It is incumbent upon us to > ask every author and contributor to declare whether they are aware of any IPR > that may be applicable to the draft. However, since we have not been unable > to contact this one co-author, we would like the working group’s input on how > to proceed by responding to this poll. > > > > These are the potential options: > > > > Remove the individual’s name from the list of contributors, moving it to the > acknowledgements section, and then request publication of the draft. > Proceed with publication of the draft regardless, with no changes to the > contributors list. > Do not publish the draft until we receive a response form the individual > (which may be never). > > > > Please respond to this poll by Friday 22nd July stating whether you support > option (1), option (2) or option (3). > > > > Best regards, > > > > Matthew and Sam. > > > > _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
