Re: Second Last Call: <draft-ietf-sieve-notify-sip-message-08.txt> (Sieve Notification Mechanism: SIP MESSAGE) to Proposed Standard

[Barry Leiba <[e-mail]>]

> I don't quite share the view that the license terms are not at
> issue here.  The reason that we have an IPR rule that asks us to
> declare what the terms of a license are is so that the working groups'
> members can evaluate both the applicability of the potentially
> encumbering patents and the terms of the license.

Yes, sorry: I was conflating this thread with the other one(s?) that are
specifically looking at how to address the late disclosures (for which the
issue really is how to deal with the failure to disclose, regardless of the
terms eventually offered).  This thread is about the Sieve documents in
question, so, yes, you're right that the terms are relevant.  I hadn't
meant to say we shouldn't think about that with respect to the two Sieve
documents.

Barry