IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dnssd] Pete Resnick's Discuss on draft-ietf-dnssd-requirements-05: (with DISCUSS)

Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> Thu, 12 March 2015 02:20 UTC

Return-Path: <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
X-Original-To: dnssd@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnssd@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC09C1A89C6; Wed, 11 Mar 2015 19:20:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uS1CJJU1sdvN; Wed, 11 Mar 2015 19:20:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sjc1-mx02-inside.nominum.com (sjc1-mx02-inside.nominum.com [64.89.234.25]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 92F021A89D3; Wed, 11 Mar 2015 19:20:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-03.win.nominum.com [64.89.235.66]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certificate Authority - G2" (verified OK)) by sjc1-mx02-inside.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4EF45DA0488; Thu, 12 Mar 2015 02:20:01 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [10.0.20.107] (71.233.43.215) by CAS-03.WIN.NOMINUM.COM (192.168.1.100) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.224.2; Wed, 11 Mar 2015 19:20:01 -0700
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
From: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <20150312020708.27620.27985.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 22:19:56 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <64537593-69EF-43FA-8660-58812A265EFB@nominum.com>
References: <20150312020708.27620.27985.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
To: Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
X-Originating-IP: [71.233.43.215]
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnssd/kMCg37vjfXHmR7to2iy3x1h6MyQ>
Cc: draft-ietf-dnssd-requirements.all@ietf.org, dnssd@ietf.org, dnssd-chairs@ietf.org, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk
Subject: Re: [dnssd] Pete Resnick's Discuss on draft-ietf-dnssd-requirements-05: (with DISCUSS)
X-BeenThere: dnssd@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion of extensions to Bonjour \(mDNS and DNS-SD\) for routed networks." <dnssd.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnssd>, <mailto:dnssd-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnssd/>
List-Post: <mailto:dnssd@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnssd-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnssd>, <mailto:dnssd-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2015 02:20:08 -0000

On Mar 11, 2015, at 10:07 PM, Pete Resnick <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?

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email