IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [apps-discuss] AppsDir review of draft-polk-ipr-disclosure

"Polk, William T." <william.polk@nist.gov> Tue, 22 May 2012 19:10 UTC

Return-Path: <william.polk@nist.gov>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8915121F84CD; Tue, 22 May 2012 12:10:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 54vKWIOkHVFn; Tue, 22 May 2012 12:10:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wsget1.nist.gov (wsget1.nist.gov [129.6.13.150]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6DD8021F84B6; Tue, 22 May 2012 12:10:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from WSXGHUB2.xchange.nist.gov (129.6.18.19) by wsget1.nist.gov (129.6.13.150) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.355.2; Tue, 22 May 2012 15:10:03 -0400
Received: from MBCLUSTER.xchange.nist.gov ([fe80::d479:3188:aec0:cb66]) by WSXGHUB2.xchange.nist.gov ([129.6.18.19]) with mapi; Tue, 22 May 2012 15:09:02 -0400
From: "Polk, William T." <william.polk@nist.gov>
To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com>, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 15:10:02 -0400
Thread-Topic: [apps-discuss] AppsDir review of draft-polk-ipr-disclosure
Thread-Index: Ac04TllWMGT0g4nyTyOVpu8gOe3POg==
Message-ID: <CBE15B98.5CF43%william.polk@nist.gov>
In-Reply-To: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E00392812C39D@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.14.0.111121
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 22 May 2012 12:18:24 -0700
Cc: "draft-polk-ipr-disclosure.all@tools.ietf.org" <draft-polk-ipr-disclosure.all@tools.ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] AppsDir review of draft-polk-ipr-disclosure
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 19:10:09 -0000

On 5/22/12 3:00 PM, "Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com> wrote:

>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Peter Saint-Andre [mailto:stpeter@stpeter.im]
>> Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2012 11:58 AM
>> To: Murray S. Kucherawy
>> Cc: apps-discuss@ietf.org;
>>draft-polk-ipr-disclosure.all@tools.ietf.org; The IESG
>> Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] AppsDir review of draft-polk-ipr-disclosure
>> 
>> That's a good question. Tim and I intend this document as a set of
>> informal guidelines and suggestions that folks might consider using.
>> It's possible that those guidelines and suggestions might prove useful,
>> but at this stage I don't think they rise to the level of best current
>> practices.
>
>Fair enough, I'm just asking the question (and also about
>farrrrrrresnickel).  It does seem to fit the general flavor of a BCP
>except that we don't actually have any experience trying any of what they
>say yet.


I think that is exactly correct.  Once we have experience, we may build
the consensus needed to support publication as a BCP.  I hope so.

>
>-MSK

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email