Hmm..I see. Let me look into it. The drafts are linked (as in one replaced the other), but the "forwarding" of the IPR seems not to have worked.
Thanks! Alvaro. On 1/25/13 11:16 AM, "Hannes Gredler" <[email protected]> wrote: >hi alvaro, > >i see now the disclosure when i use the IPR search function - e.g. >https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?option=document_search&id_documen >t_tag=draft-ietf-rtgwg-remote-lfa >thanks for fixing this. > >what is still broken is the IPR column (=empty) in the rtgwg master page. > >http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/rtgwg/ > >thanks, > >/hannes > >On Dec 19, 2012, at 6:29 PM, Alvaro Retana (aretana) wrote: > >> Just to close the loop.. This issue has been fixed and the IPR now >>shows up. >> >> Alvaro. >> >> On 12/12/12 7:09 AM, "Stewart Bryant (stbryant)" <[email protected]> >>wrote: >> >> There was a declaration against draft-shand-remote-lfa-0, >> but the chairs did not set the replacement status correctly >> when draft-ietf-rtgwg-remote-lfa-00 was published, so >> the new draft did not automatically inherit the existing >> IPR disclosure. >> >> Please can the chairs email the secretariat and request >> that they correct the meta-data so that the WG draft draft >> picks up IPR disclosure 1770 in the tracker. > > _______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
