> > - This RFC does not not explain who has change control over the protocol. I > would guess > that Cisco wants to maintain change control, but the fact alone that i have > to guess > and that this is not written out makes this a problematic IETF product.
The original intent of this draft was to document T+ as it exists today for the purposes that going forward a new draft can be introduce to add TLS. These changes if/when they happen be under IETF control. > - I am worried about the shepherd writeup: Alan replied to some of the other points, but I’ll reply here. I sent out an IPR poll as part of WGLC on October 10, 2018. All authors replied that they knew of no IPR, and there were no comments that known IPR existed. I stated that in question 7 in the write-up. For 8, I said N/A since no IPR issues were raised, and thus no need to file a disclosure. https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/vZUKPAP2OeSx2SdeHVqnkeyNJYk/ Joe _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
