IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com> Thu, 26 January 2012 22:45 UTC

Return-Path: <msk@cloudmark.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A180B21F872D for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Jan 2012 14:45:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.587
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.587 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.012, 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 yTmsyu5sGkhP for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Jan 2012 14:45:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com (ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com [72.5.239.25]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CF8321F8723 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Jan 2012 14:45:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from malice.corp.cloudmark.com (172.22.10.71) by exch-htcas901.corp.cloudmark.com (172.22.10.73) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.355.2; Thu, 26 Jan 2012 14:45:34 -0800
Received: from EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.1.74]) by malice.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.10.71]) with mapi; Thu, 26 Jan 2012 14:45:34 -0800
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com>
To: "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 14:45:33 -0800
Subject: RE: Second Last Call: <draft-ietf-sieve-notify-sip-message-08.txt> (Sieve Notification Mechanism: SIP MESSAGE) to Proposed Standard
Thread-Topic: Second Last Call: <draft-ietf-sieve-notify-sip-message-08.txt> (Sieve Notification Mechanism: SIP MESSAGE) to Proposed Standard
Thread-Index: AczcevhkmDyPwuO9TPCxUgpQCGeCRQAAE9Gg
Message-ID: <F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F19C9A7D9F5@EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com>
References: <20120125201714.3903.82295.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <4F2075BE.5070201@nostrum.com>, <033901ccdbab$6bae0900$430a1b00$@olddog.co.uk> <CD5674C3CD99574EBA7432465FC13C1B226F573BC9@DC-US1MBEX4.global.avaya.com>, <4F208AEF.5060406@qualcomm.com> <CD5674C3CD99574EBA7432465FC13C1B226F573BCE@DC-US1MBEX4.global.avaya.com> <4F21ABF2.7040002@qualcomm.com> <6842.1327617385@marajade.sandelman.ca>
In-Reply-To: <6842.1327617385@marajade.sandelman.ca>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 22:45:35 -0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Michael Richardson
> Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 2:36 PM
> To: ietf@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Second Last Call: <draft-ietf-sieve-notify-sip-message-
> 08.txt> (Sieve Notification Mechanism: SIP MESSAGE) to Proposed
> Standard
> 
> At this point, I do not have a clear idea of what the set of outcomes
> could be.  I think that they can include:
>    1) not publishing the document.
>    2) revising the document to remove/work-around the encumbered work
>    3) some legal action to attend to anul the patent (which might or
>       might not succeed).
>    4) go ahead and publish things as they are.

I also thought about suggesting a DNP or a standing DISCUSS or something until the license terms are made more IETF-friendly, unless the WG can find a way to do equivalent work that is unencumbered, but then the WG might not have the energy left.

The document could be restricted to Experimental status, but that presumes the status matters as much as or more than the RFC number.  I don't know if that's true or not in this case.

Those only cover the document though, and not the offender(s).  Still chewing on an opinion about that.

-MSK

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email