Re: [6lo] IPR on draft-ietf-6lo-btle?

["Savolainen Teemu (Nokia-TECH/Tampere)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

This document went to IESG "Publication Requested" first time at 2012-05-15. At that time we went through this same question with exactly the same set of authors, and the result is documented here https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6lowpan-btle/history/ (at date 2012-05-15):
--
(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.

Yes, this has been re-confirmed by each individual author on
2012-05-13/-14.
--
Naturally I can't comment on behalf of other authors, but what I know the situation has not changed since the last time.

The BT SIG's IPSP feature referenced from this draft is covered by BT SIG's policies, as described on page 3 of the IPSP document.

Best regards,

                Teemu

From: 6lo [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of ext Gabriel Montenegro
Sent: 19. helmikuuta 2015 23:56
To: [e-mail]
Cc: Samita Chakrabarti; James Woodyatt ([e-mail]); [e-mail]
Subject: [6lo] IPR on draft-ietf-6lo-btle?

Hi BT-LE folks,

As we start thinking about pushing this draft over to the IESG, one question that needs resolution is the status of IPR.

In particular, questions 7 and 8 in the document write-up need to address this:
http://www.ietf.org/iesg/template/doc-writeup-qa-style.html

"(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why?"

I see there is no IPR disclosure, which may be ok, but please *each* one of you acknowledge that it is or otherwise explain the situation.

Thanks,

6lo Chairs