G] regarding draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-community: IPR
> call
>
> Noting that I am not the responsible AD for this
>
> The IPR had been disclosed shortly after the call for adoption, and so the
> WG was "aware" of it when the WGLC occurred -- however, it is very
Noting that I am not the responsible AD for this
The IPR had been disclosed shortly after the call for adoption, and so
the WG was "aware" of it when the WGLC occurred -- however, it is very
easy to forget that there is IPR during the WGLC, which is why RFC7602
says (emphasis mine):
"The chai
As far as I can tell, the formal IPR disclosure with IPR terms was not
filed until several days after that request.
Thus, the WG can not have considered it in the light of the actual terms.
When I asked one WG participant, he was quite surprised by the terms.
Given the difficulty both Huawei an
