Re: a letter
Steve Coya <scoya@CNRI.Reston.VA.US> Fri, 22 March 1996 22:55 UTC
Received: from ietf.cnri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa00346; 22 Mar 96 17:55 EST
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa00341; 22 Mar 96 17:55 EST
Received: from ietf.cnri.reston.va.us by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa10723; 22 Mar 96 17:55 EST
Received: from ietf.cnri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa00333; 22 Mar 96 17:55 EST
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa00329; 22 Mar 96 17:55 EST
Received: from ietf.cnri.reston.va.us by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa10717; 22 Mar 96 17:55 EST
Received: from [127.0.0.1] by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa00319; 22 Mar 96 17:55 EST
To: Joel Halpern <jhalpern@us.newbridge.com>
cc: iesg@CNRI.Reston.VA.US
Subject: Re: a letter
In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 22 Mar 96 14:28:30 +0500." <9603221928.AA09206@lobster.newbridge>
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 1996 17:55:18 -0500
X-Orig-Sender: iesg-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Steve Coya <scoya@CNRI.Reston.VA.US>
Message-ID: <9603221755.aa00319@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US>
Joel >> Clearly, the spirit of 1602 applies, Fred >> my take for the moment is to operate on the "bis" rules. According to 1602bis... ... the IESG shall not advance the specification without including in the document a note indicating the existence of such rights, or claimed rights. So a note needs to be added to the I-Ds (once we know which ones are effected by this. The absense of any notification should probably result in the "note" being added to ALL the documents. I presume that we can include this text is a separate section of the Protocol Action that is sent to the IETF and RFC Editor (as opposed to requiring a new version of the I-D to be issued and announced) - and some of you were worried about my CCP comment :-) 1602bis>> (C) Where the IESG knows of rights, or claimed rights under (A), the IESG Secretariat shall attempt to obtain from the claimant of such rights, a written assurance that upon approval by the IESG of the relevant Internet standards track specification(s), any party will be able to obtain the right to implement, use and distribute the technology or works when implementing, using or distributing technology based upon the specific specification(s) under openly specified, reasonable, non-discriminatory terms. I believe my message covers this step. I guess "written assurance" means I should ask for a letter, presumably on the organization's letterhead (to make sure we're not negotiating with the pizza delivery guy who happens to be there at the time). 1602bis>> The Working Group proposing the use of the technology with respect to which the proprietary rights are claimed may assist the IESG Secretariat in this effort. The results of this procedure shall not affect advancement of a specification along the standards track, except that the IESG may defer approval where a delay may facilitate the obtaining of such assurances. Joel, do you know if any of the mobileip folks are with Panosonic? 1602bis >> The results will, however, be recorded by the IESG Secretariat , and made available online. The IESG may also direct that a summary of the results be included in any RFC published containing the specification. This was/is to be changed to read that I will make these results (what a term for a letter) available, but not requiring that it be be on-line. Steve
- Re: a letter Steve Coya
- Re: a letter Fred Baker
- Re: a letter Steve Coya
- Re: a letter Joel Halpern
- Re: a letter Fred Baker
- Re: a letter Steve Coya
- Re: a letter Scott Bradner