Sorry, managed to hit send button to early. The IPR statement is available at: https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/ipr_detail_show.cgi?ipr_id=688 Stefan Santesson Program Manager, Standards Liaison Windows Security -----Original Message----- From: Stefan Santesson Sent: den 28 februari 2006 15:26 To: 'Bill Strahm'; Russ Housley Cc: Bill Fenner; tls@xxxxxxxx; ietf@xxxxxxxx; iesg@xxxxxxxx; Steven M. Bellovin Subject: RE: Last Call: 'TLS User Mapping Extension' to Proposed Standard This empty appendix was removed in draft 02. As Russ stated before, an IPR disclosure has been posted to the IETF IPR page which can be found at: Stefan Santesson Program Manager, Standards Liaison Windows Security -----Original Message----- From: Bill Strahm [mailto:bill@xxxxxxxxxx] Sent: den 20 februari 2006 02:21 To: Russ Housley Cc: Bill Fenner; tls@xxxxxxxx; ietf@xxxxxxxx; iesg@xxxxxxxx; Steven M. Bellovin Subject: Re: Last Call: 'TLS User Mapping Extension' to Proposed Standard I saw all of the huff, and while I agree with it, I am more concerned about Appendix A. IPR Disclosure TBD What does that mean, and more specifically is a document with a TBD section really ready for last call at all ? Bill Russ Housley wrote: > I misunderstood the original question. I'll get it fixed or withdraw > the Last Call. > > Russ > > > At 12:38 AM 2/19/2006, Bill Fenner wrote: > >> >Can we have a Proposed Standard >> >without the IETF having change control? >> >> No. RFC3978 says, in section 5.2 where it describes the derivative >> works limitation that's present in draft-santesson-tls-ume, "These >> notices may not be used with any standards-track document". >> >> Bill > > > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > > _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf