Re: IPR disclosure for draft-kaplan-insipid-session-id

[Gonzalo Camarillo <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

these disclosures were already made long ago against the WG's drafts.
So, the WG has been very much aware of them for a long time and they
have been discussed several times in the face-to-face meetings. Some of
the comments during the chartering of INSIPID actually related to the
knowledge of well-known existing IPR in that particular area.

The disclosures were just not updated in time to reflect their
applicability to this new draft. Now they have been updated and we will
re-IETF LC the draft so that everybody is on the same page.

Cheers,

Gonzalo


On 21/09/2013 7:29 AM, SM wrote:
> Hello,
> At 01:52 20-09-2013, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote:
>> to summarize the status of this IETF LC, we are still expecting (at
>> least) an additional IPR disclosure on this draft (as announced on the
>> INSIPID list). When that happens, I will IETF LC it again.
> 
> There was a discussion about IPR on this mailing list but nobody
> mentioned RFC 6701 or RFC 6702.  It is a mystery why the IETF cannot
> remember the (Informational) RFCs it published one year ago.
> 
> There was a Last Call for draft-kaplan-insipid-session-id-03 (
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-announce/current/msg11753.html
> ).  The announcement did not mention any IPR disclosure.  Does the above
> qualify as a late disclosure?
> 
>> In the mean time, we need to address the comments related to the IANA
>> registration the draft requests. I have discussed with the expert
>> reviewer (Adam) and adding something along these lines would help:
>>
>> "This registration is intended to be temporary. The authors expect that
>> a standards-track definition of Session-ID will be published at a future
>> date. Assuming such a document is published, it will replace this
>> registration with a reference to itself, at which point this document
>> will no longer be referenced by IANA."
> 
> draft-ietf-insipid-session-id-02 is a WG document intended as a Proposed
> Standard.  The INSIPID charter mentions a milestone for February 2013. 
> It would be good if the IESG takes into consideration the overhead of
> getting this temporary assignment published as an IETF RFC.  The reason
> given for publication was that 3GPP has tight deadlines.  It is
> understandable that there can be delays in reaching a milestone.  What
> is the INSIPID WG estimate for that future date?
> 
> Regards,
> -sm 
>