Re: Furthering discussions about BCP79 sanctions

2012-02-14 Thread todd glassey
On 2/12/2012 10:12 AM, Adrian Farrel wrote: Hi SM, So isnt the real issue that of informed consent? If you dont know that someone else has already existing work is it their fault for not telling the IETF? If so then there would also need to be some form of process identical to this for

RE: Furthering discussions about BCP79 sanctions

2012-02-14 Thread Adrian Farrel
:43 To: ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: Furthering discussions about BCP79 sanctions On 2/12/2012 10:12 AM, Adrian Farrel wrote: Hi SM, So isnt the real issue that of informed consent? If you dont know that someone else has already existing work is it their fault for not telling the IETF

Re: Furthering discussions about BCP79 sanctions

2012-02-14 Thread Thomas Nadeau
Sent: 14 February 2012 17:43 To: ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: Furthering discussions about BCP79 sanctions On 2/12/2012 10:12 AM, Adrian Farrel wrote: Hi SM, So isnt the real issue that of informed consent? If you dont know that someone else has already existing work is it their fault

Re: Furthering discussions about BCP79 sanctions

2012-02-12 Thread SM
At 11:08 10-02-2012, Adrian Farrel wrote: There has been some discussion on this list about draft-farrresnickel-ipr-sanctions-00. Thanks for the input. The conversation seems to be partitioned into: - discussion of sanctions and how to apply them - discussion of measures that can be taken to

RE: Furthering discussions about BCP79 sanctions

2012-02-12 Thread Adrian Farrel
Hi SM, There has been some discussion on this list about draft-farrresnickel-ipr-sanctions-00. Thanks for the input. The conversation seems to be partitioned into: - discussion of sanctions and how to apply them - discussion of measures that can be taken to help people to adhere to