Florian Weimer wrote:
I'm confused. I thought the message mentioned by Thierry is
[EMAIL PROTECTED], and Rob's reply is contained in
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; the latter is a
reply in all relevant senses I can currently think of.
Perhaps there was another message to the four authors that hasn't
On 11 May 2007 04:14:57 + Paul wrote:
PV can someone who followed the POISED effort please explain IETF's policies
PV around restricted IPR? [...] so why isn't there a rule against
PV submitting drafts covered by restrictive IPR in the first place?
PV
PV [...] there ought to be a rule
PV
Mr Story:
Thanks for looking into this. See my technical comment/question below:
Robert Story wrote:
[...]
I think this is exactly the sort of thing the IPR RFC requires for
accepting encumbered ideas. (Although the restriction to root zone
I think this is exactly the sort of thing the IPR RFC requires for accepting
encumbered ideas. (Although the restriction to root zone operators is a bit
troubling.)
yes. (also, TAKREM was offered free for GPL implementators, and so, worthless.)
Anyways, the basic idea is that there's no
On Fri, 11 May 2007 17:11:16 + Paul wrote:
PV I think this is exactly the sort of thing the IPR RFC requires for
accepting
btw, the IPR RFC is 3979 http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3979.txt
PV i'm trying to uplevel the argument. can we make posting to ietf WG mailing
PV lists contingent on IPR