Alvaro Retana
2018-12-05 21:53:45 UTC
Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-alto-cost-calendar-09: Discuss
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)
Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-alto-cost-calendar/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a process DISCUSS.
This document replaces draft-randriamasy-alto-cost-calendar, but this
information is not reflected in the datatracker. The individual draft has an
IPR declaration attached to it [1], but the failure to link the two documents
has resulted in the IPR indication not carrying over. The direct effect is
that the IETF Last Call [2] explicitly says that "No IPR declarations have been
submitted directly on this I-D."
The Shepherd writeup says that "The entire author team has confirmed
conformance with BCP 78/79 with the shephered." -- but that doesn't indicate
whether IPR is present or not, just conformance. In looking through the
mailing list archive, I couldn't find mention of the IPR at adoption [3] [4] or
at WGLC [5].
The declaration was made early in the process [6], and there was no discussion
in the WG about it. I can see how it would be easy to overlook.
Nonetheless, it is necessary for the WG (and the IETF as a whole) to explicitly
consider the declaration before proceeding with the publication of this
document.
[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2392/
[2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/alto/LI01TfoTCnJRDImEUXA-9x8KsZ4
[3] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/alto/xFErWArHhpF-0ZVR_1BAhgzRj3k
[4] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/alto/-D7cj6qoD-Q3ye3rpuj8li2xWms
[5] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/alto/67W_XuMfu7JMXQEEZFLkulw_xBI
[6]
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipr-announce/lnZ65z15_Dn3bylJp7h9rGHxZFk
draft-ietf-alto-cost-calendar-09: Discuss
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)
Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-alto-cost-calendar/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a process DISCUSS.
This document replaces draft-randriamasy-alto-cost-calendar, but this
information is not reflected in the datatracker. The individual draft has an
IPR declaration attached to it [1], but the failure to link the two documents
has resulted in the IPR indication not carrying over. The direct effect is
that the IETF Last Call [2] explicitly says that "No IPR declarations have been
submitted directly on this I-D."
The Shepherd writeup says that "The entire author team has confirmed
conformance with BCP 78/79 with the shephered." -- but that doesn't indicate
whether IPR is present or not, just conformance. In looking through the
mailing list archive, I couldn't find mention of the IPR at adoption [3] [4] or
at WGLC [5].
The declaration was made early in the process [6], and there was no discussion
in the WG about it. I can see how it would be easy to overlook.
Nonetheless, it is necessary for the WG (and the IETF as a whole) to explicitly
consider the declaration before proceeding with the publication of this
document.
[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2392/
[2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/alto/LI01TfoTCnJRDImEUXA-9x8KsZ4
[3] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/alto/xFErWArHhpF-0ZVR_1BAhgzRj3k
[4] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/alto/-D7cj6qoD-Q3ye3rpuj8li2xWms
[5] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/alto/67W_XuMfu7JMXQEEZFLkulw_xBI
[6]
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipr-announce/lnZ65z15_Dn3bylJp7h9rGHxZFk