I do support this document being published as BCP.
A couple of minor comments:
Section 4's reference to BCP 84, in part, creates a false sense of
useful action on part of the operator, IMO (in addition, there's a
typo; s/were/where/).
In situations were more complex network setups are in pla
On 2007-10-01 13:53, Dave Crocker wrote:
Bernard Aboba wrote:
Making an example of a document does not constitute development
of a consistent and comprehensive policy on the handling of late
IPR disclosure.
For example, what happens if IPR disclosure occurs after RFC publication?
This is not
Bernard Aboba wrote:
Making an example of a document does not constitute development
of a consistent and comprehensive policy on the handling of late
IPR disclosure.
For example, what happens if IPR disclosure occurs after RFC publication?
This is not an abstract question -- there are cases
I support the publication of this document as an Experimental RFC.
However, this document raises issues relating to disclosure of IPR and
affiliation that still need to be dealt with.
Brian Carpenter said:
"I think the IETF already sent a very strong signal that it won't
close its eyes to late
Dear Colleagues,
On behalf of the IETF, the IAB has to deliver one of the 17 voting
members to the ICANN Nomcom for 2008.
Now that the selections from the 2007 ICANN Nomcom have been
announced [1] we would like to ask the community for volunteers to
serve on the 2008 ICANN Nomcom. The IA
