All, Thx Ulrich for bringing this to the mailing list. I have sent a lengthy email to WG-chairs and ADs on this issue but this mail sums it up quite easily. This is my understanding:
I have re-read BCP-79 on the train home from IETF and I have to agree with Scott that the IPR-disclosure on the keyrelay draft is conform BCP-79, as licence details are not mandatory. On 28 Jul 2016, at 13:46, Ulrich Wisser <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: I believe if we indicate that the WG is content with the information provided by Verisign, the IESG will forward the document As far as I see it the IPR-disclosure is conform BCP-79 and should not be blocking publication. The WG has not discussed the IPR-disclosure at all in public, so implementers will have to consider this IPR disclosure themselves before implementing this (My company had legal advice in this specific case). Of coarse I agree that an updated IPR-disclosure with licensing details makes it easier for implementers to make an informed decision but it is not necessary. So I am content with the information provided by Verisign. I would love to hear from others, especially the WG-chairs an ADs what they think on this matter. Gr, Rik
_______________________________________________ regext mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
