Re: [CCAMP] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-rsvp-te-ext-03: (with COMMENT)

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

On 19/11/15 14:57, BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A wrote:
> Hi Stephen,
> 
> Looking at the list archive, the disclosure is dated Aug. 4. And on
> Aug 5, one of the authors noted it and their best effort to disclose
> quickly when made aware of it: 
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/eafHJl4vR0UpINehuJ4yN1YVze4
>
>  Just before WG Last Call, as we do among my groups (trained well by
> our former AD), an IPR poll was done, and the IPR was noted. And
> during WG Last Call (dated Aug. 29), no concerns were raised.

Ah grand thanks. I wasn't sure if the latest version was pre or
post WGLC.

> 
> And this is quite typical IPR for the Routing Area.
> 
> So not iccky:-)

Well, depends on one's general position wrt the USPTO I guess, but
good that there's nothing process-bad here, thanks for clarifying.

Cheers,
S.


> 
> Thanks for your concern- Deborah
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message----- From: iesg [mailto:[e-mail]]
> On Behalf Of Stephen Farrell Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2015 8:16
> PM To: The IESG <[e-mail]> Cc: [e-mail];
> [e-mail];
> [e-mail]; [e-mail] Subject: Stephen Farrell's
> No Objection on draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-rsvp-te-ext-03: (with
> COMMENT)
> 
> Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for 
> draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-rsvp-te-ext-03: No Objection
> 
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to
> all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to
> cut this introductory paragraph, however.)
> 
> 
> Please refer to
> https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more
> information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> 
> 
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-rsvp-te-ext/
>
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 
COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 
> 
> The IPR disclosure is dated one day after the date of the current
> draft. That's kind of iccky in terms of the WG having really had a
> chance to consider what they think of the IPR, e.g. before a WGLC.
> Did the WG specifically consider this IPR declaration in a way that
> left some trace?  (Sorry I've not had time to check the list
> archive.)
> 
>