> -----Original Message-----
> From: Antoin Verschuren [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2016 8:05 AM
> To: Hollenbeck, Scott
> Cc: Job Snijders; Stephen Farrell; draft-ietf-eppext-
> [email protected]; Livesay, Paul; [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [regext] draft-ietf-eppext-keyrelay unreasonably stuck on
> IPR?
> 
> Op 9 nov. 2016, om 13:19 heeft Hollenbeck, Scott
> <[email protected]> het volgende geschreven:
> 
> > This never happened. Point 2:
> >
> > "I think you need to be clear about which of these cases is actually
> being supported and about the overall sequence of events needed. (If
> you tell me that you really want to do whatever is in draft-koch, then
> that's fine but then this draft is probably premature and draft-koch
> would need to be a normative ref.)"
> >
> > This never happened, either. Failure to address these two points is
> what held up the document, not the disclosure that I as an IETF
> participant was required to make.
> 
> I need to correct you on this one Scott.
> Issue 2 was resolved in the latest version of the draft (12), as
> communicated by Rik:
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/regext/Y_6WuONMXiQolqfguUcfdgA6uD
> s
> 
> The authors chose to adjust text in stead of reviving draft-koch and
> make it a normative reference, even though the authors of draft-koch
> are happy to revive the draft and ask for adoption by the DNSOPS WG.
> 
> The reason for this is that draft-koch is harassed by the same IPR, and
> the cause why adoption by the DNSOPS WG never happened.
> It's been in that state for so long now, that copies of the secure
> transfer concept start to appear in new drafts targeted for DNSOPS like
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-pounsett-transferring-automated-
> dnssec-zones/ which are then also targeted by the IPR because
> participants don't remember anymore.

OK, thanks, good to know. The discuss should have been updated to note that 
change.

Scott

_______________________________________________
regext mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext

Reply via email to