thanks Scott
> On Feb 26, 2016, at 12:55 PM, Andrej Ota <[email protected]> wrote: > > As a coauthor, I am not aware of any IPR related to the submitted internet > draft. > > > I did contact David and Lol and I will politely contact them again so they > can ack/nack as well. > > On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 5:38 PM, Warren Kumari <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > > > > -- > -- > 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 _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
