IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Last Call: <draft-polk-ipr-disclosure-03.txt> (Promoting Compliance with Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) Disclosure Rules) to Informational RFC

Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> Sun, 27 May 2012 16:22 UTC

Return-Path: <housley@vigilsec.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 17D7F21F853C for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 27 May 2012 09:22:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.676
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.676 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.077, 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 axWnMnNLRI4k for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 27 May 2012 09:22:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from odin.smetech.net (mail.smetech.net [208.254.26.82]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BB2A21F8469 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 27 May 2012 09:22:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (unknown [208.254.26.81]) by odin.smetech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5C42F24025; Sun, 27 May 2012 12:22:20 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at smetech.net
Received: from odin.smetech.net ([208.254.26.82]) by localhost (ronin.smetech.net [208.254.26.81]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UNh-hjlNMVQZ; Sun, 27 May 2012 12:22:17 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [192.168.2.100] (pool-96-255-37-161.washdc.fios.verizon.net [96.255.37.161]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by odin.smetech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31C62F24014; Sun, 27 May 2012 12:22:20 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-polk-ipr-disclosure-03.txt> (Promoting Compliance with Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) Disclosure Rules) to Informational RFC
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
In-Reply-To: <tsl1um6h6h4.fsf@mit.edu>
Date: Sun, 27 May 2012 12:22:16 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <F86376BB-2E7A-46BE-8ABD-E5005C01F1B9@vigilsec.com>
References: <CBC48C89.8671C%stewe@stewe.org> <4FBC113C.3050707@stpeter.im> <6.2.5.6.2.20120522233611.08d14c78@resistor.net> <4FBEAFC8.40703@stpeter.im> <6.2.5.6.2.20120524154050.09714b10@resistor.net> <4FBED16C.3080008@stpeter.im> <tsl1um6h6h4.fsf@mit.edu>
To: Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Cc: IETF <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: Sun, 27 May 2012 16:22:25 -0000

Sam:

I'm seeking clarity.  Are you suggesting that the pre-WG mail list ask this question while drafting the charter, or are you suggesting that the IESG include this question in the call for external review of the charter, or both?

Russ


On May 26, 2012, at 7:23 PM, Sam Hartman wrote:

> I'd like to challenge the assumption that an explicit call for adoption
> is required if work is mentioned in a charter.  Sometimes, if work is
> mentioned as a possible starting point, that's true.  However for
> working groups like the original XMPP, DKIM, ABFAB and BEEP, where work
> was mentioned as a basis/as *the* starting point, the question of
> whether to adopt the work happens as part of the chartering process.
> I'm not sure that impacts how IPR is handled; in that case I'd expect
> the IPR to be confirmed/discussed as part of the chartering process.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email