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

[john.loughney at nokia.com]

Pekka,

> --On lørdag, oktober 23, 2004 20:45:58 +0300 Pekka Savola 
> <pekkas at netcore.fi> 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

_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wg at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg