IETF Logo Mail Archive

Late IPR disclosures

S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> Sat, 25 June 2022 21:21 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@elandsys.com>
X-Original-To: ipr-wg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipr-wg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC7A9C15AD41 for <ipr-wg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 25 Jun 2022 14:21:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.707
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.707 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=elandsys.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2Z0EO7wZnLm5 for <ipr-wg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 25 Jun 2022 14:21:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 855C1C15AAEE for <ipr-wg@ietf.org>; Sat, 25 Jun 2022 14:21:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from DESKTOP-K6V9C2L.elandsys.com ([102.116.111.50]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id 25PLKoaB004709 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 25 Jun 2022 14:21:00 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1656192061; x=1656278461; i=@elandsys.com; bh=cQucV5Y4y/edw+TQ8AsnpMKy/DiZVfnu6v+3H87i5Gc=; h=Date:To:From:Subject; b=z7zRZ9akox3TcZGKogWCvGVosrajye+eeFV+gZX3cNhifYaHnGw/Sl3QoRSk9V9E2 mxdkLPHDSWY4+U0af5rsL3jahX+Nbyk3GrshsNEBPTmAJSoTpXQO5VJMWrt00oN5Oz lrtA+LPiJs1FBZAG8Qzrx3pixXAI+09/7oc5pF74=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20220625135518.0e9050b0@elandnews.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2022 14:19:57 -0700
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>, ipr-wg@ietf.org
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
Subject: Late IPR disclosures
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipr-wg/lwHDUEBYdzIxa_-U7C2qIZfcqxA>
X-BeenThere: ipr-wg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: IPR-WG <ipr-wg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipr-wg>, <mailto:ipr-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipr-wg/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipr-wg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipr-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg>, <mailto:ipr-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2022 21:21:08 -0000

Hi John,

I was reading draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-alt-mark which is currently being 
evaluated by the IESG.  There was an IPR disclosure after the Last 
Call, in addition to the two disclosures which were filed before 
that.  It is not possible for the working group to evaluate 
alternative solutions (Section 5.2 of RFC 8179) when an IPR 
disclosure is filed this late in the process.

Is this another case of too late to fix?

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email