Re: [nvo3] Poll on progressing draft-ietf-nvo3-encap with missing IPR declaration

[Donald Eastlake <[e-mail]>]

I would like to see this document progress and, given its general
nature (mostly a statement of requirements and listing of previously
documented characteristics of alternatives), I think there is really
no chance that it has any new IPR in it.

I support option 1. I have personally sent dozens of emails over a
period of months to the non-responsive person. I received precisely
one response over a month ago in which they indicated a general lack
of interest in the document but did say they would look at it. Despite
multiple pings, I have heard nothing since. If they continue to be
non-responsive and listed as a contributor, special action will have
to be taken to get through AUTH48 also.

However, if the WG will not go with option 1, we could go with option
2. I would support that if it is the WG's choice.

Thanks,
Donald
===============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   [phone] (cell)
 2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA
 [e-mail]

On Fri, Jul 8, 2022 at 8:51 AM Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)
<[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> NVo3 WG,
>
>
>
> The chairs believe there is consensus to publish draft-ietf-nvo3-encap as an informational RFC. However, we are missing an IPR declaration from one of the co-authors listed in the Contributors section.
>
>
>
> Despite repeated attempts to contact them over several weeks through multiple channels, we have not received an IPR declaration. It is incumbent upon us to ask every author and contributor to declare whether they are aware of any IPR that may be applicable to the draft. However, since we have not been unable to contact this one co-author, we would like the working group’s input on how to proceed by responding to this poll.
>
>
>
> These are the potential options:
>
>
>
> Remove the individual’s name from the list of contributors, moving it to the acknowledgements section, and then request publication of the draft.
> Proceed with publication of the draft regardless, with no changes to the contributors list.
> Do not publish the draft until we receive a response form the individual (which may be never).
>
>
>
> Please respond to this poll by Friday 22nd July stating whether you support option (1), option (2) or option (3).
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
>
> Matthew and Sam.
>
>
>
>