Chris, After reading the IPR document, my vote is for A.
A. The WG SHOULD proceed with draft-ietf-syslog-transport-tls as a Working Group document. Regards Andrew Kiwi Enterprises Chris Lonvick wrote: > Hi Folks, > > Please continue to send in your opinion on this. I'll determine > consensus next Thursday and outline our steps to go forward. > > Thanks, > Chris > > On Wed, 5 Jul 2006, Chris Lonvick wrote: > >> Hi Folks, >> >> Everyone has now had a week to think about the IETF process on IPR >> claims. The first decision that we need to make is about the terms of >> the claim. >> I'd like to hear what people think about the terms that Huawei has >> presented. >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/ipr_detail_show.cgi?&ipr_id=724 >> >> Please keep in mind that we can (and should) proceed with >> syslog-transport-tls if the terms appear reasonable and you (as >> implementors) are willing to accept them. Let's keep this discussion >> focused. >> - We do not need a discussion of the terms. >> - We do not need any legal opinions. >> - We do not need a discussion of technical alternatives on this thread. >> >>> From that, I'd like to hear either: >> >> A) The WG SHOULD proceed with draft-ietf-syslog-transport-tls as a >> Working Group document. >> >> or >> >> B) The WG SHOULD NOT proceed with draft-ietf-syslog-transport-tls as >> a Working Group document. >> >> I'll leave this open until the 19th (so people going to the IETF can >> catch their collective breaths and give a good opinion. >> >> If the consensus appears to be "A" then we can get straight back to >> work. >> >> If the consensus appears to be "B" then I will very briefly ask if >> there are changes to the terms that would make them acceptable. I'll >> only ask that if the consensus appears to be "B" so don't insert your >> opinions on that at this time. I'm (just barely) willing to ask that >> (once) of the Huawei lawyers but I feel that negotiating terms is not >> going to move us forward; it's likely to be a rat-hole discussion and >> I won't let us go down there. >> >> If the consensus remains "B" then we will likely move away from >> syslog-transport-tls. Where we move to will be a different >> discussion so please don't insert your opinion about that on this >> discussion thread. David has opened that discussion on a separate >> thread so you may discuss it on the list, but I'm not focused on that >> at this time. >> >> Thanks, >> Chris >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Syslog mailing list >> Syslog@lists.ietf.org >> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Syslog mailing list > Syslog@lists.ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog _______________________________________________ Syslog mailing list Syslog@lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog _______________________________________________ Syslog mailing list Syslog@lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
