Re: [tcpm] Last Call: draft-ietf-tcpm-tcpsecure (Improving TCP's Robustness to Blind In-Window Attacks) to Proposed Standard
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [tcpm] Last Call: draft-ietf-tcpm-tcpsecure (Improving TCP's Robustness to Blind In-Window Attacks) to Proposed Standard
Anantha Ramaiah (ananth) wrote:
> There were some comments by Sandra Murphy which we have had
> discussion. I had already responded to Fernando's comments and the
> agreed upon comments are being incorporated.
IIRC, there had been comments from Brian Carpenter about specific
requirements for text in RFC 3979. Here's a quote from Brian's post:
> Personal belief doesn't come into it. It's strictly defined in a BCP.
> RFC3979 tells us the rules about this. Basically, the RFC Editor will
> do what is required:
>
> "4. Actions for Documents for which IPR Disclosure(s) Have Been
> Received
>
> (A) When any Intellectual Property Right is disclosed before
> publication as an RFC, with respect to any technology or
> specification, described in a Contribution in the manner set
> forth in Section 6 of this document, the RFC Editor shall
> ensure
> that the document include a note indicating the existence of
> such
> claimed Intellectual Property Rights in any RFC published from
> the Contribution. (See Section 5 below.)"
>
> [Section 5 defines the exact text to be included in such RFCs.
> I believe you can use <?rfc iprnotified="yes"?> in xml2rfc.]
I'm not sure what's the chairs' and ADs' take on this issue.
Thanks!
Kind regards,
--
Fernando Gont
e-mail: fernando at gont.com.ar || fgont at acm.org
PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1
Note: Messages sent to this list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.