On 8/24/17, 4:44 PM, "Martin Vigoureux" <martin.vigour...@nokia.com> wrote:
Martin: Hi! > speaking as Shepherd. > Regarding Q1&Q2: Indeed, Section 2 is the core of the document, and in > my view the section containing what is worth standardizing. What, exactly, is this document standardizing? It is probably too late to argue about not having a separate mpls-focused document, so I’m not arguing against publication. I am also not concerned about the length – it is good to see focused, clear documents. … > Regarding Q3: since, as you say, we can not state whether a given piece > of IPR is valid or not, I am not sure whether we can discuss the > applicability of IPR disclosures (made against other documents) to this > document, and vice versa. Right. That was a question/observation mostly for the IPR owners. I’m just wondering whether the declaration was done against the right document since I can’t really tell what is new and different here that was not in the Architecture document. I’ll be happy with the IPR holders just thinking about it… Thanks! Alvaro. _______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
