All, <SNAP/> >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?
We (the authors) agree that the best option is to forward the document with the updated IPR disclosure by Verisign. However, given the fact that we are waiting for this update for over 235 days now we think that the time has come for the workgroup to discuss alternative options to move forward. >2. To the working group - is there anyone who objects to moving this document >forward without an IPR licensing statement? We don’t object. Like stated before we had legal advice on this specific IPR disclosure. >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. @Jim could you please quantify what significant consensus means? Especially how many ”No objections” would be needed. The reason for asking is that there is a fast silent majority in this working group. >I would appreciate if working group members would respond to the second >question on the list. We second that and ask people to state their opinion on the mailinglist on this specific issue. Best regards, Rik Ribbers and Marc Groeneweg _______________________________________________ regext mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
