Re: [dnssd] Further IPR disclosures on draft-ietf-dnssd-requirements-05 ?

Le 2015-03-12 10:28, Lynn, Kerry E a écrit :
> Tim,
>
> The draft contains no IPR that I'm aware of.  I'm not sure I understand
> how an informational I-D addressing requirements could even contain
> IPR.
my take too. Not sure there is any IPR that could be claimed on this 
document. But, I guess it is safer and appropriate for our process to 
double check. I guess we are now just waiting for Stuart to confirm.

Marc.
>
> Regards, Kerry
>
> From: Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk <mailto:tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>>
> Date: Thursday, March 12, 2015 at 9:04 AM
> To: "draft-ietf-dnssd-requirements.all@ietf.org 
> <mailto:draft-ietf-dnssd-requirements.all@ietf.org>" 
> <draft-ietf-dnssd-requirements.all@ietf.org 
> <mailto:draft-ietf-dnssd-requirements.all@ietf.org>>
> Cc: "dnssd-chairs@ietf.org <mailto:dnssd-chairs@ietf.org>" 
> <dnssd-chairs@ietf.org <mailto:dnssd-chairs@ietf.org>>, Ted Lemon 
> <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com <mailto:Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>>
> Subject: Further IPR disclosures on draft-ietf-dnssd-requirements-05 ?
>
> Kerry, Stuart, Marc, Daniel,
>
> Please can you confirm whether there is any additional IPR on the 
> requirements draft as per Ted’s request below?
>
> As per my other email just now, I understood that the IPR statement on 
> the requirements draft (i.e. 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2114/) had intended to be on the 
> hybrid solution draft (i.e. https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2119/ ).
>
> Apologies for this extra late (hopefully small) hurdle.
>
> Thanks,
> Tim
>
>> On 12 Mar 2015, at 02:19, Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com 
>> <mailto:Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>> wrote:
>>
>> On Mar 11, 2015, at 10:07 PM, Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com 
>> <mailto:presnick@qti.qualcomm.com>> wrote:
>>>  The draft includes the boilerplate confirming that the document "is
>>>  submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP
>>>  79". No disclosures have been made, nor are expected to be made in an
>>>  Informational requirements draft.
>>
>> Argh, sorry, I didn't catch that.   Tim, please ask the authors to 
>> say explicitly whether they are aware of any additional IPR.   The 
>> boilerplate isn't adequate, because it is added by a tool, and is not 
>> present in the XML source.
>>
>>> There was an IPR disclosure made on the earlier pre-WG version of this
>>> document back in 2013. Were the authors asked whether that disclosure
>>> also applies to this version of the document? Is the WG aware of this
>>> disclosure? Did the WG discuss the disclosure? Were any concerns raised?
>>
>> Hm.   This has certainly come up in meetings.   I think the only time 
>> it was mentioned on the mailing list was prior to the BoF that 
>> produced dnssd.   The disclosure has been in the tracker all along. 
>>   Are you suggesting that the working group may have agreed to 
>> advance the document without being aware of this, despite the IPR 
>> having been present in the tracker?
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> dnssd mailing list
>> dnssd@ietf.org <mailto:dnssd@ietf.org>
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnssd
>