Hi, On Thu, Nov 10, 2016, at 07:44 AM, Rik Ribbers wrote: > First of all thanks Antoin for your excellent reply. lots of +1 > in there. > >> On 9 Nov 2016, at 19:47, Antoin Verschuren <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Jim has asked for this before, with little to no response to call >> consensus to have this draft proceed, so I would like to ask you >> again to state your opinion on this mailinglist so Jim can summarize >> them in a response to the IESG. > We all know what is going to happen now… we have been waiting for a > response for almost a year now and nothing happens in the WG. So the > document is not only stalled on a IPR-disclosure without licensing > details but also on a WG that is not willing to discuss this. > > So I propose an option 3: Describe the situation to the IESG and from > this > (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/regext/wHlAx8OrF_r5DiSWhr8LuMk860g_) > mail conversation Stephen will (unhappy with the crappy situation) > clears his DISCUSS. At least this gets the document of the plate from > the WG and takes the discussion to the IESG where the document and the > IPR disclosure can be discussed in a broader context then just > keyrelay and the REGEXT WG.
The main problem with this option is that IESG still needs feedback from the WG about what outcome the WG prefers. IESG is unlikely to make a decision to "just publish" on its own. Alexey (not speaking for the whole IESG, but just my gut feeling).
_______________________________________________ regext mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
