Re: [Lsr] Warren Kumari's No Objection on draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis-04: (with COMMENT)

[Warren Kumari <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 6:54 AM Alvaro Retana <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> On December 19, 2018 at 6:09:55 PM, Warren Kumari ([e-mail])
> wrote:
>
> Warren:
>
> Hi!
>
> 1: From the shepherd writeup:
> (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
> disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
> and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.
>
> Pending Response at WG adoption:
> Authors: S Giacolone, D Ward
> Contributors: A Atlas, C Filsfils
>
> There was no IPR poll done during/after WGLC.
> ---
> I'm not sure I really understand what happened, and if they ever replied -
> I'll
> trust that the AD did the right thing.
>
> rfc7810 is a fairly recent document (2016), all the IPR checks were done
> there [1].  Because of the importance, with relation to shipping
> implementations, of the changes in rfc7810bis, and to not delay the
> processing longer than needed, we decided to move on.  Note that Les, who
> took on the editorial pen for the changes, is the only author/contributor
> not listed as such in rfc7810.
>

Okey dokey (and, unsurprisingly, I was right to trust that you'd done the
right thing :-))
W



> Alvaro.
>
> [1]
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-isis-te-metric-extensions/shepherdwriteup/
>
>


-- 
I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad idea in
the first place.
This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair of
pants.
   ---maf