Good Afternoon,
Interesting question Jim. It seems like it would be a benefit to most of the stakeholders to have a licensing statement included prior to moving forward. Why would we not include the statement? I was unable to attend the last meeting, though I did review the minutes and it looks like there was some discussion on this, so maybe this has already been answered. Thanks Roger -----Original Message----- From: regext [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of James Galvin Sent: Monday, August 08, 2016 9:56 AM To: Rik Ribbers <[email protected]> Cc: Alexey Melnikov <[email protected]>; Ulrich Wisser <[email protected]>; Registration Protocols Extensions <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [regext] draft-ietf-eppext-keyrelay 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]<mailto:[email protected]%3cmailto:[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]<mailto:[email protected]> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext _______________________________________________ regext mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
_______________________________________________ regext mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
