Subject: RE: [newtrk] Re: I-D ACTION:draft-savola-ipr-lastcall-04.txt (fwd)

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 11:55:17 +0300

Pekka,

> --On lørdag, oktober 23, 2004 20:45:58 +0300 Pekka Savola 
> <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> >  2) 'from now on, if a new informational/experimental RFC is brought
> > forward which would not be IETF last called under the current policy,
> > it must be last called to bring forth the IPR for community review'.
> 
> I think this translates to "all documents that are not RFC-Editor 
> submissions, and where IPR is filed, must be Last-Called".
> 
> I think that's a reasonable thing to do, but it IS a new requirement (and 
> will in some cases slow down the publication process by 2-4 weeks).

OK, I am a little confused.  If what Harald is suggesting is what you mean,
than you need to explicitly state it.  

I'm in favor of including all IPR disclosers in IETF LCs.  A link to the 
relevant disclosure is fine.  However, I'm more worried about IPRs which
are not disclosed, thought I don't know what to do about that.

About the draft itself:

1) Fix the double blank line problem.
2) Provide a little more motivation for this.  Maybe its Monday, but reading
   the draft right now, I couldn't really see what problem this draft is 
   solving.  Perhaps its just that we don't have enough process already, so
   a little more is better.

thanks
John

.
newtrk resources:_____________________________________________________
web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk.html
mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk/index.html

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 12:44:14 +0300 (EEST)

> 1) Fix the double blank line problem.

This is actually caused by by the IETF secretariat, I think, due to 
the way they process email attachments.  I send them a draft with 
single line breaks, but the output always has two.

I guess I should try to send them a link rather than an attachment..

>    solving.  Perhaps its just that we don't have enough process already, so

True enough.  The justification is simple: to bring out IPR issues
forth more openly, so that those to which those may be a problem can
better form their opinion.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

.

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 07:07:23 -0500

>   solving.  Perhaps its just that we don't have enough process 

I'm almost certain that JohnL is kidding - right, John? :-) 

.