Re: [eppext] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-eppext-keyrelay-11: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

["Hollenbeck, Scott" <[e-mail]>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: EppExt [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Stephen
> Farrell
> Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2015 6:41 AM
> To: The IESG
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; draft-ietf-eppext-
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: [eppext] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-eppext-
> keyrelay-11: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
> 
> Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-eppext-keyrelay-11: Discuss
> 
> 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-eppext-keyrelay/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCUSS:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> (1) The IPR declaration says that license terms will be available
> "later." As things stand, I don't understand how the WG can have
> made an informed decision in that case. I looked at the archive
> and saw essentially no discussion, other than the announcement. I
> also looked at the application and it's not crystal clear to me at
> least that none of the claims are relevant. The shepherd write-up
> also doesn't help me, but of course there may have been discussion
> in a f2f meeting that is documented in minutes or something - I've
> not checked for such, or I may have missed out on some list
> traffic. Anyway, the DISCUSS is to ask did I miss stuff and if not
> how can WG participants have rationally considered an IPR
> declaration if the licensing information will only arrive "later"
> after the document is approved to become an RFC?  (Note: If I am
> explicitly told that this was considered and participants were ok
> with the declaration even as-is, then I'll clear.)

I will see what I can do to have the declaration updated ASAP.

Scott