Re: Running code, take 2
Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com> Thu, 13 December 2012 16:01 UTC
Return-Path: <ted.ietf@gmail.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 7355921F8BA9 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Dec 2012 08:01:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.451
X-Spam-Level:
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 mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id d-NOhVG0-xyI for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Dec 2012 08:01:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-vc0-f172.google.com (mail-vc0-f172.google.com [209.85.220.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A60621F8B5E for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Dec 2012 08:01:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-vc0-f172.google.com with SMTP id fw7so2535388vcb.31 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Dec 2012 08:01:57 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; 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 10.52.36.167 with SMTP id r7mr3512252vdj.108.1355414517540; Thu, 13 Dec 2012 08:01:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.58.164.35 with HTTP; Thu, 13 Dec 2012 08:01:57 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <50C8DB78.3080905@gmail.com>
References: <50C8DB78.3080905@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 08:01:57 -0800
Message-ID: <CA+9kkMDa6WACEpWPgMuO=QL-QAMGhjemti3qgiR_Otb0fK6ZhA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Running code, take 2
From: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
To: Yaron Sheffer <yaronf.ietf@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="20cf30780ca4d768e404d0be08bc"
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
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, 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. regards, Ted Hardie
- Running code, take 2 Yaron Sheffer
- Re: Running code, take 2 Alessandro Vesely
- RE: Running code, take 2 Adrian Farrel
- Re: Running code, take 2 Marc Blanchet
- Re: Running code, take 2 Yaron Sheffer
- Re: Running code, take 2 Yaron Sheffer
- Re: Running code, take 2 Marc Blanchet
- Re: Running code, take 2 Yaron Sheffer
- Re: Running code, take 2 Marc Blanchet
- RE: Running code, take 2 Adrian Farrel
- Re: Running code, take 2 Yaron Sheffer
- RE: Running code, take 2 Adrian Farrel
- Re: Running code, take 2 Marc Blanchet
- Re: Running code, take 2 Loa Andersson
- Re: Running code, take 2 Marc Blanchet
- RE: Running code, take 2 Yaron Sheffer
- Re: Running code, take 2 Ted Hardie
- Re: Running code, take 2 Loa Andersson
- Re: Running code, take 2 Melinda Shore
- Re: Running code, take 2 Randy Bush
- Re: Running code, take 2 Melinda Shore
- Re: Running code, take 2 Randy Bush
- Re: Running code, take 2 Yaron Sheffer
- Re: Running code, take 2 John C Klensin
- Re: Running code, take 2 Randy Bush
- Re: Running code, take 2 Melinda Shore
- Re: Running code, take 2 John C Klensin
- Re: Running code, take 2 Yaron Sheffer
- Re: Running code, take 2 t.p.
- Re: Running code, take 2 t.p.
- Re: Running code, take 2 Randy Bush
- Re: Running code, take 2 Randy Bush
- Re: Running code, take 2 Alessandro Vesely
- Re: Running code, take 2 Yaron Sheffer
- Re: Running code, take 2 Riccardo Bernardini
- Re: Running code, take 2 Stephen Farrell
- Re: Running code, take 2 Yaron Sheffer
- The notion of "fast tracking" drafts (was: Re: Ru… John C Klensin
- Re: Running code, take 2 John C Klensin
- Re: The notion of "fast tracking" drafts Stephen Farrell
- Re: Running code, take 2 Yaron Sheffer
- Re: Running code, take 2 John C Klensin
- Re: The notion of "fast tracking" drafts Keith Moore
- Re: The notion of "fast tracking" drafts John C Klensin
- Re: The notion of "fast tracking" drafts Stephen Farrell
- Re: The notion of "fast tracking" drafts Keith Moore
- Re: The notion of "fast tracking" drafts Stephen Farrell