Ted Hardie skrev: >> I'd like the people who want time on the agenda to supply a text (preferably >> published as an I-D), which summarizes, as clearly as possible: >> >> - What they think has changed since the last IPR WG evaluation of patent >> policy >> >> - What changes in overall direction they think the WG should address >> >> - What the charter for this activity should look like >> >> If more than one such proposal should appear, I'd suggest giving each >> submitter a 5-10 minute slot for making their argument, and leaving at least >> half an hour for general discussion. >> >> Please submit I-Ds with the name pattern of >> draft-<submitter>-ipr-patent-<something> - that would make it easy for us to >> find them all. >> >> The timeslot for the WG is Tuesday morning from 0900 to 1130; the >> rechartering discussion would be within the time from 1030 to 1130. >> > > Just to be clear, if someone has the view that documents like Simon's > how-to should be within the charter of the working group, but that there > are no changes needed to the base policy, do you still want an I-D? Or > is a rationale submitted as a short statement enough? > In the case of Simon's I-D, there is already an existing I-D, which (if I remember rightly - it's been a long time since I've read it) explains its rationale fairly well. So a simple request to have that placed on the agenda, with a brief statement of what the desired outcome is, should be enough.
Harald _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf