[Fecframe] AD question about IPRs on draft-ietf-fecframe-raptor-10

Martin Stiemerling <martin.stiemerling@neclab.eu> Fri, 20 April 2012 12:33 UTC

Return-Path: <Martin.Stiemerling@neclab.eu>
X-Original-To: fecframe@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: fecframe@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8742221F874F for <fecframe@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Apr 2012 05:33:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.467
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.467 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.132, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tWkIZnEXNttj for <fecframe@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Apr 2012 05:33:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailer1.neclab.eu (mailer1.neclab.eu [195.37.70.40]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E369221F8748 for <fecframe@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Apr 2012 05:33:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailer1.neclab.eu (Postfix) with ESMTP id D22B4100D8E for <fecframe@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Apr 2012 14:31:51 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Amavisd on Debian GNU/Linux (netlab.nec.de)
Received: from mailer1.neclab.eu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (atlas-a.office.hd [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id weDODB47ejtx for <fecframe@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Apr 2012 14:31:51 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ENCELADUS.office.hd (enceladus.office.hd [192.168.24.52]) by mailer1.neclab.eu (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA75C100D8C for <fecframe@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Apr 2012 14:31:46 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [10.1.1.190] (10.1.1.190) by skoll.office.hd (192.168.125.11) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Fri, 20 Apr 2012 14:33:47 +0200
Message-ID: <4F9157AA.8020205@neclab.eu>
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2012 14:33:46 +0200
From: Martin Stiemerling <martin.stiemerling@neclab.eu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120329 Thunderbird/11.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: <fecframe@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Originating-IP: [10.1.1.190]
Subject: [Fecframe] AD question about IPRs on draft-ietf-fecframe-raptor-10
X-BeenThere: fecframe@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion of FEC Framework <fecframe.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/fecframe>, <mailto:fecframe-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/fecframe>
List-Post: <mailto:fecframe@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:fecframe-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe>, <mailto:fecframe-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2012 12:33:53 -0000

Dear all,

The draft-ietf-fecframe-raptor-10 is scheduled for the upcoming IESG 
telechat on April 26th.

And as your new Area Director I have a question about the WG's view on 
the IPR. There are by today (April 20th) 4 IPR disclosures with respect 
to this draft:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?option=document_search&id_document_tag=draft-ietf-fecframe-raptor

What is the opinion of the WG about those IPR disclosures? Is there any 
disagreement to move the draft forward or are all fine with the current 
state?

Thanks in advance,

   Martin

-- 
IETF Transport Area Director

martin.stiemerling@neclab.eu

NEC Laboratories Europe - Network Research Division NEC Europe Limited
Registered Office: NEC House, 1 Victoria Road, London W3 6BL
Registered in England 283