On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 9:28 AM, Marc Groeneweg <[email protected]> wrote: >>>the IPR declaration's statement that licensing information >>>will be provided "later." > As we had with the keyrelay draft in regext (and the draft of Peter Koch with > DNSSEC transfers).
Can you remind us what ended up happening with those two? I vaguely remember some discussion about it being hard to get a commitment, and that "later" seemed like a DoS on the process, but was there ever a resolution? Is the WG OK with this, or do you feel that we need to try and get the IPR statement updated? (Remembering that, AFAIK, we cannot do anything other than ask nicely...) W > > <SNAP/> > >> I see that Verisign has offered a free-unless-you-sue-us license for >> other patent applications, like this one, dunno why they do for some >> but not others: >> >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2703/ > Other than that the suggested draft is also by Verisign themselves? > >> In any event, you alrady know what my suggested solution is. > > Regards, > Marc > > _______________________________________________ > dane mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dane -- 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 _______________________________________________ dane mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dane
