IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Proposed IESG Statement on IPR Declarations

Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> Wed, 13 July 2016 06:03 UTC

Return-Path: <dhc@dcrocker.net>
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 20C2312B01D for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Jul 2016 23:03:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.107
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.107 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RDNS_NONE=0.793] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cKgHTYlQFftE for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Jul 2016 23:03:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from simon.songbird.com (unknown [72.52.113.5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8367112B01B for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Jul 2016 23:03:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [172.16.0.16] (no-dns-yet.convergencegroup.co.uk [46.255.117.114] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by simon.songbird.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-4.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id u6D649id002887 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 12 Jul 2016 23:04:11 -0700
Subject: Re: Proposed IESG Statement on IPR Declarations
References: <20160707202122.23634.18168.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <0bf601d1d942$3214fc00$963ef400$@olddog.co.uk>
To: adrian@olddog.co.uk, ietf@ietf.org
From: Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
Message-ID: <fc15a14a-a975-6390-f1e2-c3dbef87bf6e@dcrocker.net>
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2016 07:03:28 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <0bf601d1d942$3214fc00$963ef400$@olddog.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/pdUowpJYlYBRtZPfmrsN_NFZ5D4>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Wed, 13 Jul 2016 06:03:38 -0000

On 7/8/2016 6:57 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
>  would advise the IESG to not make a statement in parallel to BCP 79 since alternative wording of the same material will create rather than remove ambiguity.


+1

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email