How about the IESG simply rescinds its decision in this week's
meeting? I don't see any need for an appeal; if there's a
prima facie violation of the disclosure rules, it's just a
management item. Much less bother than an appeal.
Of course, the rescission would be subject to appeal, but
that's ano
On October 8, the IESG approved the registration of application/3gpp-
ims+xml Media Type. On Nov 2, RIM filed an IPR disclosure related to
this at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1219/
The associated patent, filed Oct 2008, is at
http://www.google.com/patents?id=Mk7GEBAJ
and the rel
I'd like to draw peoples attention to the IPR disclosure
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1213
on
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-montemurro-gsma-imei-urn
The associated patent seems to be
http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=O7qXEBAJ
Let me point out Mr. Allen is an author of both a
On Nov 18, 2009, at 9:45 AM, Paul Vixie wrote:
>>> The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
>>> the following document:
>>>
>>> - 'Multicast DNS '
>>>as an Informational RFC
>>>
>>> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
>>> fin
Cullen Jennings wrote:
>
> Can someone walk me through the pro/cons of this being standards track
> vs informational?
>
Apple supports it.
Linux supports it (mostly).
BSD supports it (mostly).
So half the world supports it.
When Microsoft too supports it, it is a standard.
I do support it (bec
Roy,
At this point I think we're arguing in a circle, so I will
simply wait to see what the authors and Area Director want to
do next. A Gen-ART review has no more standing than any other
Last Call comment.
Regards
Brian Carpenter
On 2009-11-18 15:18, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> On Nov 17, 2009,
I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's
ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the
IESG. These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the
security area directors. Document editors and WG chairs should treat
these comments jus
> >The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
> >the following document:
> >
> >- 'Multicast DNS '
> > as an Informational RFC
> >
> >The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
> >final comments on this action. Please send substantive co
On Wed Nov 18 15:41:18 2009, Cullen Jennings wrote:
Can someone walk me through the pro/cons of this being standards
track vs informational?
Cons:
For one thing, it's a lot of work to make a specification like this
up to the quality of the standards-track.
Some of the 20 or so mentions
> On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 12:54:35PM +1300, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> >
> > Since we're (presumably) trying to write rules that will
> > work when common sense has failed, it seems prudent to have
> > a clear path for disputes of an unknown nature.
> I get the sentiment, and I think it comes from
>If we get to the point where the IESG, the RFC Editor, and the IAB
>can't among them work out a sensible compromise (because common sense
>has failed), then we have much bigger problems than getting things
>published on the Independent Submissions track.
+1
We're software and network guys (and g
Can someone walk me through the pro/cons of this being standards track
vs informational?
Thanks, Cullen
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 12:54:35PM +1300, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>
> Since we're (presumably) trying to write rules that will
> work when common sense has failed, it seems prudent to have
> a clear path for disputes of an unknown nature.
I get the sentiment, and I think it comes from a noble im
Hi Samuel,
Thank you for the review.
Samuel Weiler wrote:
I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's
ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the
IESG. These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the
security area directors. Docume
14 matches
Mail list logo
