Rik,
Speaking as working group co-chair (note that the other co-chair is
conflicted as he is a co-author), the working group has agreed to submit
this document for publication but the working group has not considered
the issue of the IPR.
To say this differently, the working group has agreed with the content
of the document but it has not fully considered the IPR that may or may
not apply to the resulting standard.
Typically, the IETF does not approve standards with an IPR claim unless
two things are true. First, the working group must have significant
consensus that it has considered the IPR and believes that the document
represents the best solution regardless. Second, there is an
expectation that there will be some indication of the licensing that may
or may not be required based on the IPR.
While it is true that no licensing statement is required, the working
group must consider this fact as part of its discussion and then decide
what its consensus will be based on that.
Since the working group has not yet considered the question of whether
or not it wants to advance this document without an IPR licensing
statement, let me ask two questions at this time.
1. To the document authors - do you want to ask the working group if it
would be willing to advance this document without a licensing statement
from Verisign?
2. To the working group - is there anyone who objects to moving this
document forward without an IPR licensing statement?
While normally rough consensus is sufficient to resolve a question, in
this case I want to state in advance that I will require significant
consensus, which means limited objection, in order to declare that the
working group believes that this document should move forward. I
believe that the IETF in general will expect this of this working group.
I would appreciate if working group members would respond to the second
question on the list.
Thanks!
Jim
(speaking as co-Chair of REGEXT)
On 28 Jul 2016, at 8:29, Rik Ribbers wrote:
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
_______________________________________________
regext mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
