Re: draft-ietf-eppext-keyrelay unreasonably stuck on IPR?

Stephen Farrell <> Tue, 08 November 2016 19:58 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3508129D86; Tue, 8 Nov 2016 11:58:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.798
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.798 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.497, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id O7C0CgHuXtjw; Tue, 8 Nov 2016 11:58:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6BE421295CA; Tue, 8 Nov 2016 11:58:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5118BE32; Tue, 8 Nov 2016 19:57:59 +0000 (GMT)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Mz7GD59kGDMe; Tue, 8 Nov 2016 19:57:58 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from [] ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AB704BE4D; Tue, 8 Nov 2016 19:57:57 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;; s=mail; t=1478635078; bh=1klUVzPl8DkUeFttB4B06Y4k3QUQ1NJF6tqKoBCCeV4=; h=Subject:To:References:Cc:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=qWfMe+uv7ALxzFZHC9cU7ux4s35mBa2yf7zDDBJiAHEQvCWMSxM1IXwRPSQV8tnlp qQhcqJXinVPYPbZ7x/bpTolUsOojmjiP/Usf0/vdRABQQ37ffvVyfbapLekEMimoQC xc0p1koWfI5m+wPiWX46vhd60Q0vlpDVGCKlcANc=
Subject: Re: draft-ietf-eppext-keyrelay unreasonably stuck on IPR?
To: S Moonesamy <>, Job Snijders <>,
References: <20161108144742.GH2473@Hanna.local> <>
From: Stephen Farrell <>
Openpgp: id=D66EA7906F0B897FB2E97D582F3C8736805F8DA2; url=
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2016 19:57:57 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha-256"; boundary="------------ms030909050606090809040008"
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2016 19:58:05 -0000

On 08/11/16 18:40, S Moonesamy wrote:
> Hi Job,
> At 06:47 08-11-2016, Job Snijders wrote:
>> Since the EPPEXT Working Group has been concluded and evolved into
>> regext, I'm reaching out to the bigger group about a document that
>> somehow is stuck.
> Did the authors or Working Group address the second part of the DISCUSS?

I believe they did. It's so long ago though I forget;-)

As to the meat of this, my discuss says "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?"

As Job says, the reaction from the folks who declared IPR was
that they needed a bit of time to check internally. And it
seems that they gave that response again again some months

I also chatted with Job about this a while back and indicated
that I'd be willing to clear (though not happy to clear) if the
response from the WG (via the chairs or AD) were something like
"the WG has consensus to live with the crap situation, seems
like it's not improving and we don't have anyone saying it out
be blocking."  I don't think I ever did hear that back from anyone
though. Had I, I would have cleared the discuss. (And apologies
if I missed a statement to that effect.)


> Regards,
> S. Moonesamy
> P.S. There may have been a communication breakdown as the draft started
> in EPPEXT which no longer exists.  There was also some personnel changes
> along the way.