Hi Rik, Stephen,
[ietf@ removed from Cc]
At 11:53 08-11-2016, Rik Ribbers wrote:
Yes, this was addressed during the IESG review last december and
resulted in the latest version. The only thing blocking is the IPR-disclosure
Thank you for confirming that.
At 11:57 08-11-2016, Stephen Farrell wrote:
As to the meat of this, my discuss says "the DISCUSS is to ask
did I miss stuff and if not how can WG participants have
rationally considered an IPR declaration if the licensing
information will only arrive "later" after the document is
approved to become an RFC?"
[snip]
I also chatted with Job about this a while back and indicated
that I'd be willing to clear (though not happy to clear) if the
response from the WG (via the chairs or AD) were something like
"the WG has consensus to live with the crap situation, seems
like it's not improving and we don't have anyone saying it out
be blocking." I don't think I ever did hear that back from anyone
though. Had I, I would have cleared the discuss. (And apologies
if I missed a statement to that effect.)
Thanks. I gather that the above is clear enough for the Working
Group to address the DISCUSS.
Regards,
S. Moonesamy
_______________________________________________
regext mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
