B) As the document is technically inadequate as a standard for syslog over TLS,
we
would also benefit from a fresh start with an editor without H*** in their
e-mail address.

Tom Petch


----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Lonvick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2006 12:23 AM
Subject: [Syslog] Need your input on the Hauwei IPR claim


> 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
> [email protected]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog


_______________________________________________
Syslog mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog

Reply via email to