Re: Running code, take 2

Ted Hardie <> Thu, 13 December 2012 16:01 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7355921F8BA9 for <>; Thu, 13 Dec 2012 08:01:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.451
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.451 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.147, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id d-NOhVG0-xyI for <>; Thu, 13 Dec 2012 08:01:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A60621F8B5E for <>; Thu, 13 Dec 2012 08:01:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id fw7so2535388vcb.31 for <>; Thu, 13 Dec 2012 08:01:57 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=QaZiFRwU/t1MVJHiFS4s7rxNq9B/Ki6zVX/VRmfOVo0=; b=Pdsd/SBzg2qGx2NN0/RYtsKPcdBvf4uLBHkQ5MGInvRzk8BmlIbaStuzVlR9Fg/UaR Xygz2xE8b0lzAPyKbC7AEUPvzTA2X4aw0vbO/brEy+aPATWipWlJb/u3sMw9eMVfaUrB vJhQeH3aibVgxcu9f9HE3gzLixvWH3e/gKXpQhcIMKZ4Sca3PLZT0TGl+hvqxH5gan7T 3zhE3LqA9SzPWoRAGk0y2f5SFfdgseUaxsDLirUTQHD4YfcmSO1W5NkmKnkXLjNh19Zd jIp9Rs9a/S+CRt10e0eoXYVYRFoCwSP7uzEK8qeRWSqA7+HGFLIl55JuhLwLityu0y/7 YWNQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with SMTP id r7mr3512252vdj.108.1355414517540; Thu, 13 Dec 2012 08:01:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with HTTP; Thu, 13 Dec 2012 08:01:57 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 08:01:57 -0800
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: Running code, take 2
From: Ted Hardie <>
To: Yaron Sheffer <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="20cf30780ca4d768e404d0be08bc"
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 16:01:59 -0000

Hi Yaron,

Reading through this draft, I note that you're suggesting inclusion of
information about the type of implementation license (open source,
proprietary, etc.).  While that may be useful, I'd be more interested in
knowing whether the implementation represents an exercise of any licenses
required by IPR disclosures for the relevant draft.  Since there are
implementations (even open source implementations) that might be submitted
by the same organization holding the IPR, this is not something you can
automatically infer.  There are also, of course, cases where an implementor
does not agree that an IPR statement's claim of coverage is correct.

Before we eliminated the requirements for demonstrating two interoperable
implementations at Draft, one piece of that requirement was that the two
being used represent different exercises of any license.  If we are going
to start tracking implementations, it might be useful to get that data back.


Ted Hardie