Ted Hardie skrev:
>> I'd like the people who want time on the agenda to supply a text (preferably published as an I-D), which summarizes, as clearly as possible:
>>
>> - What they think has changed since the last IPR WG evaluation of patent policy
>>
>> - What changes in overall direction they think the WG should address
>>
>> - What the charter for this activity should look like
>>
>> If more than one such proposal should appear, I'd suggest giving each submitter a 5-10 minute slot for making their argument, and leaving at least half an hour for general discussion.
>>
>> Please submit I-Ds with the name pattern of draft-<submitter>-ipr-patent-<something> - that would make it easy for us to find them all.
>>
>> The timeslot for the WG is Tuesday morning from 0900 to 1130; the rechartering discussion would be within the time from 1030 to 1130.
>>
>
> Just to be clear, if someone has the view that documents like Simon's
> how-to should be within the charter of the working group, but that there
> are no changes needed to the base policy, do you still want an I-D? Or
> is a rationale submitted as a short statement enough?
>
In the case of Simon's I-D, there is already an existing I-D, which (if
I remember rightly - it's been a long time since I've read it) explains
its rationale fairly well. So a simple request to have that placed on
the agenda, with a brief statement of what the desired outcome is,
should be enough.
Harald
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf