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.)

It will be early next year before Verisign will be able to provide an updated declaration due to the upcoming holidays and associated time off for involved people. Sorry for the delay.

Scott