It is now almost 2 weeks since we asked for explicit IPR ACKs from all the authors.
We have only received one. The document starts out with: "This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79" The explicit IPR check should simply be affirming the above. None of the authors should be "surprised" authors (2 of the authors have been very active, and it has been stated that David and Lol were contacted and checked). Frankly I'm starting to lose my sense of humor on this... W On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 12:15 PM Andrej Ota <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm am double checking with in-house IPR legal. > > I have also sent off e-mails to David Carrel and Lol Grant so they know > about the call. > > On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 9:55 PM, Warren Kumari <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Dear WG (and specifically draft-ietf-opsawg-tacacs authors), >> >> So far we have received an IPR acknowledgment from Douglas ( >> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/FLI-7qqaD3AbArBKM42iNRiMxq8) >> , but are still missing it from the rest of the authors: Thorsten >> Dahm, Andrej Ota, David Carrel, Lol Grant. >> >> Please reply to this email regardless of whether or not you are >> personally aware of any relevant IPR... >> >> (I have just noticed that David and Lol do not have email addresses >> listed. Thorsten said that he spoke with them (recording from Prague) - >> please add their email addresses - they will need to ack the IPR, and also >> the AUTH48 if / when it happens...) >> >> W >> >> >> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 7:46 AM Warren Kumari <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Dear WG, >>> >>> Thanks to everyone who has been participating. It is refreshing to see >>> this much passion and involvement in OpsAWG! We wanted to give this a bit >>> of time to settle down, and also to see where this ended up. >>> >>> We are going to do a series of steps to get as clear a view of the >>> consensus of the WG about this document. This message is a explicit call >>> for any known IPR. >>> >>> We will follow up with two other messages, each with a particular >>> question - the reason for such formality is to try to untangle the many >>> threads that erupted on the main list. >>> >>> Many of you have already expressed your opinion but can you please do so >>> again in response to the forthcoming two messages so that the record is >>> clear. We expect to determine the path forward in 2 weeks. >>> >>> Are you personally aware of any IPR that applies to >>> draft-ietf-opsawg-tacacs? If so, has this IPR been disclosed in compliance >>> with IETF IPR rules? >>> (See RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669, and 5378 for more details.) >>> >>> If you are a document author or listed contributor on this document, >>> please reply to this email regardless of whether or not you are personally >>> aware of any relevant IPR. >>> >>> Scott, Tianran and Warren >>> >> > > > -- > -- > Andrej Ota > > Google Ireland Ltd., Google Docks, Barrow St., Dublin 4, Ireland > Registered in Dublin, Ireland - Registration # 368047 >
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
