On 27/01/2012 01:50, Barry Leiba wrote:
[...]
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 12:37 PM, John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com
wrote: We were told by the other company employees who facilitated
the disclosures, at the time of the disclosures, that this was strictly an individual's failure to comply with
- Original Message -
From: Pete Resnick presn...@qualcomm.com
To: Murray S. Kucherawy m...@cloudmark.com
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Friday, January 27, 2012 12:06 AM
On 1/26/12 4:45 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org
On 1/25/2012 7:44 PM, Adam Roach wrote:
On 1/25/12 15:50, Jan 25, Adrian Farrel wrote:
Well, at least U.S. patent application. And, for that matter, International
Application PCT/CN2008/072066:
http://www.wipo.int/patentscope/search/en/WO2009024088
Google Translate does an impressive job
Hi Adrian,
At 21:48 25-01-2012, Adrian Farrel wrote:
Why is Qian Sun still listed on the front page as an author.
Wouldn't it be more
appropriate to move the name to the Acknowledgements section where the text
could read...
As editorship is a WG Chair decision, it is up to the SIEVE WG Chairs
On Wed Jan 25 22:27:05 2012, SM wrote:
That's the uncomfortable question. Some alternatives are:
(a) Ask the company not to participate in the IETF for X period
(b) Take action against the individual(s) responsible for the
breach
(c) Ask the individual(s) involved for an explanation
On Jan 26, 2012, at 12:12 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
On 1/25/2012 1:50 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
I believe the document should be returned to the working group who are the
main
victims of the disruptive behaviour by the author.
The working group might be the closest and could
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Dave
Cridland
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 12:19 AM
To: SM; Adrian Farrel; IETF-Discussion
Subject: Re: Second Last Call: draft-ietf-sieve-notify-sip-message-
08.txt (Sieve Notification
-sip-message-08.txt (Sieve Notification Mechanism:
SIP MESSAGE) to Proposed Standard)
The violation has a negative impact on the IETF (see comment from Dave
Crocker on this thread). It raises questions which should not be
asked.
Oh, I don't agree with that last bit at all
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Murray S. Kucherawy
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 6:43 AM
To: IETF-Discussion
Subject: RE: Second Last Call: draft-ietf-sieve-notify-sip-message-
08.txt (Sieve Notification Mechanism: SIP
Why is Qian Sun still listed on the front page as an author.
Wouldn't it be more
appropriate to move the name to the Acknowledgements section where the
text could read...
As editorship is a WG Chair decision, it is up to the SIEVE WG Chairs
to comment on why Qian Sun is still listed on
At 07:25 26-01-2012, Adrian Farrel wrote:
I have not made any statement about what the company has done.
Ok.
I don't view *disclosing* as a problem here. In fact disclosure is to be
encouraged.
I too don't view disclosing as a problem here. It is possible to
compare the statement with
From: Pete Resnick [presn...@qualcomm.com]
Before posting this Last Call (and the similar one for
draft-ietf-sieve-convert), the documents *were* returned to the SIEVE WG
to review the situation. With minimal complaint from the WG and no
indication that the WG wished to change their
On 1/26/12 1:25 PM, Worley, Dale R (Dale) wrote:
OK, that resolves all my objections. The higher pay grades (IESG
and IAB) may have policy concerns, but that is not my expertise.
Just in case others are having similar thoughts:
The IESG and IAB are *not* the ones that get to make the
At 11:39 26-01-2012, Pete Resnick wrote:
Just in case others are having similar thoughts:
The IESG and IAB are *not* the ones that get to make the decision
about what ought to be done here. The community needs to come to a
consensus about the right outcome and the leadership folks will
judge
Hi SM,
--On January 26, 2012 1:16:12 PM -0800 SM s...@resistor.net wrote:
I have not seen any feedback from IETF participants affiliated with
Huawei. I'll highlight a comment made by John Klensin:
There is feedback along those lines on the SIEVE WG mailing list. Please
see the thread
Pete == Pete Resnick presn...@qualcomm.com writes:
Pete decision about what ought to be done here. The community needs
Pete to come to a consensus about the right outcome and the
Pete leadership folks will judge that consensus and instantiate
Pete whatever actions need to be
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Michael Richardson
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 2:36 PM
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Second Last Call: draft-ietf-sieve-notify-sip-message-
08.txt (Sieve Notification Mechanism: SIP
Michael Richardson wrote:
Pete == Pete Resnick presn...@qualcomm.com writes:
Pete decision about what ought to be done here. The community needs
Pete to come to a consensus about the right outcome and the
Pete leadership folks will judge that consensus and instantiate
Pete
On 1/26/12 4:45 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Michael
Richardson
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 2:36 PM
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Second Last Call:draft-ietf-sieve-notify-sip-message-
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 4:16 PM, SM s...@resistor.net wrote:
I have not seen any feedback from IETF participants affiliated with Huawei.
Hi.
I'm affiliated with Huawei. I'm a (recently added; see below)
co-editor on the two Sieve documents. I'm a chair of three working
groups.
I suggest that
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 5:50 PM, Barry Leiba barryle...@computer.org wrote:
I am not a lawyer, but I don't think the license terms are at issue
here. As I understand it, the terms that Huawei has been specifying
in its disclosures are defensive, and shouldn't restrict standards
On Jan 26, 2012, at 9:26 41PM, Ted Hardie wrote:
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 5:50 PM, Barry Leiba barryle...@computer.org wrote:
I am not a lawyer, but I don't think the license terms are at issue
here. As I understand it, the terms that Huawei has been specifying
in its disclosures are
I don't quite share the view that the license terms are not at
issue here. The reason that we have an IPR rule that asks us to
declare what the terms of a license are is so that the working groups'
members can evaluate both the applicability of the potentially
encumbering patents and the
Hi Barry,
At 17:50 26-01-2012, Barry Leiba wrote:
That seems excessive. Shut down all document progress until we
resolve this issue? I think that cure is far worse than the disease.
It does not significantly affect document progress.
Thanks for the input.
Regards,
-sm
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Barry
Leiba
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 5:50 PM
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Second Last Call: draft-ietf-sieve-notify-sip-message-
08.txt (Sieve Notification Mechanism: SIP MESSAGE
Barry Leiba wrote:
I am not a lawyer, but I don't think the license terms are at issue
here. As I understand it, the terms that Huawei has been specifying
in its disclosures are defensive, and shouldn't restrict standards
implementations. The issue we're discussing isn't the terms, but that
Just to make sure I understand the sequence of events:
1. August 21, 2007: Huawei files a patent (CN 200710076523.4) on using
SIP for SIEVE notifications. The inventor is listed as a single
Huawei employee.
2. August 30, 2007: That same Huawei employee and two additional
authors
: draft-ietf-sieve-notify-sip-message-08.txt
(Sieve Notification Mechanism: SIP MESSAGE) to Proposed Standard
Just to make sure I understand the sequence of events:
1. August 21, 2007: Huawei files a patent (CN 200710076523.4) on using SIP
for SIEVE notifications. The inventor is listed
2012 21:36
*To:* ietf@ietf.org
*Cc:* si...@ietf.org; The IESG; IETF-Announce
*Subject:* Re: Second Last Call:
draft-ietf-sieve-notify-sip-message-08.txt (Sieve Notification
Mechanism: SIP MESSAGE) to Proposed Standard
Just to make sure I understand the sequence of events:
1. August
:36
To: ietf@ietf.org
Cc: si...@ietf.org; The IESG; IETF-Announce
Subject: Re: Second Last Call: draft-ietf-sieve-notify-sip-message-08.txt
(Sieve Notification Mechanism: SIP MESSAGE) to Proposed Standard
Just to make sure I understand the sequence of events:
August 21, 2007: Huawei files
At 13:35 25-01-2012, Adam Roach wrote:
Just to make sure I understand the sequence of events:
August 21, 2007: Huawei files a patent (CN 200710076523.4) on using
SIP for SIEVE notifications. The inventor is listed as a single
Huawei employee.
August 30, 2007: That same Huawei employee and
From: Adrian Farrel [adr...@olddog.co.uk]
In my opinion, this second last call should be suspended until this
significant breach of the IETF's IPR policy set out in BCP79 has been
resolved.
[...]
I believe the document should be returned to the working group who are
the main victims of
Hi SM!
On 1/25/12 3:27 PM, SM wrote:
At 13:50 25-01-2012, Adrian Farrel wrote:
2. How will the IETF handle the breach of IPR policy?
That's the uncomfortable question. Some alternatives are:
(a) Ask the company not to participate in the IETF for X period
We all participate as
On 1/25/12 4:39 PM, Worley, Dale R (Dale) wrote:
From: Adrian Farrel [adr...@olddog.co.uk]
In my opinion, this second last call should be suspended until this
significant breach of the IETF's IPR policy set out in BCP79 has been
resolved.
[...]
I believe the document should be returned to the
On 1/25/12 3:35 PM, Adam Roach wrote:
Just to make sure I understand the sequence of events:
1. August 21, 2007: Huawei files a patent (CN 200710076523.4) on
using SIP for SIEVE notifications. The inventor is listed as a
single Huawei employee.
2. August 30, 2007: That same
On 1/25/12 15:50, Jan 25, Adrian Farrel wrote:
Please also see US patent 20090204681 visible at
http://ip.com/patapp/US20090204681
Well, at least U.S. patent application. And, for that matter,
International Application PCT/CN2008/072066:
At 17:40 25-01-2012, Pete Resnick wrote:
Correct, except let's call it an Internet Draft for precision's sake.
What this thread is actually about is a violation of IETF process
(BCP) or IETF policy (Failure to comply with patent disclosure
requirements is a violation of IETF policy, and the
: Violation of IETF process (was: Second Last Call:
draft-ietf-sieve-notify-
sip-message-08.txt (Sieve Notification Mechanism: SIP MESSAGE) to Proposed
Standard)
At 17:40 25-01-2012, Pete Resnick wrote:
Correct, except let's call it an Internet Draft for precision's sake.
What this thread
On 1/25/2012 1:50 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
I believe the document should be returned to the working group who are the main
victims of the disruptive behaviour by the author.
The working group might be the closest and could reasonably have the highest
sense of frustration -- Pete's later
The IESG has received a request from the Sieve Mail Filtering Language WG
(sieve) to consider the following document:
- 'Sieve Notification Mechanism: SIP MESSAGE'
draft-ietf-sieve-notify-sip-message-08.txt as a Proposed Standard
Last calls were earlier issued on version -05 of this document
40 matches
Mail list logo
