Dear WG Chairs, et al., I support progressing this document. I think that Option 1 is the reasonable way forward out of this situation.
Regards, Greg On Fri, Jul 8, 2022 at 5:51 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: > > > > 1. Remove the individual’s name from the list of contributors, moving > it to the acknowledgements section, and then request publication of the > draft. > 2. Proceed with publication of the draft regardless, with no changes > to the contributors list. > 3. Do not publish the draft until we receive a response form the 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 >
_______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
