Re: [bess] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-bess-spbm-evpn-01: (with COMMENT)

Alissa,

On 2015-09-30 02:48, Alissa Cooper wrote:
> Hi Loa,
>
>>
>> If we want to make a change in practice,
>
> I never suggested a change in practice. I asked a question.

Yeah you are right, I might have been over interpreting your question
in the context of having this type of question raised for the second
time in within a week. I inferred that IESG or at least some ADs that
treated this in a new and that we were at risk losing the rather
precarious balance we have between "making wg's aware of" and "not
discussing" the validity of IPR disclosures.

You were of course right asking the question.
Martin kindly answered it, although he didn’t have to, as it was in a 
non-blocking comment.

You were of course right asking the question. But I'm not sure I agree
with your evaluation of Martin's answer.

The way I see this work is that we ask all authors/contributors
(sometimes we have been criticized of making the group we requite
answer from too big) respond to a question on if they are aware of IPRs
on the mailing list. The entire wg see these responses and the question
it is within days followed by an adoption poll or wglc (stating whether
there are IPRs on this document or not. My take is that anyone that
support the adoption or makes comments during wglc are aware of the IPR
and also agree to proceed; that is what adoption poll or wglc is all
about, right?

This is true for the document Martin responded for also, no explicit
discussion (not needed) but in the context of the working group being
made aware of IPR disclosures.

/Loa
make
>
> Alissa
>
>> we should at least find something that
>> works as well as "silence is consent".  A few mails, resulting from a normal IPR
>> disclosure, does not improve anything.
>>
>> /Loa
>
> _______________________________________________
> BESS mailing list
> BESS@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
>