Fully agree, while there is a specific mailing list for that matter (the IPR WG), it should be taken there, unless it is then defined as out-of-scope. Regards, Jordi > De: Theodore Tso <tytso@xxxxxxx> > Responder a: <ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx> > Fecha: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 13:10:11 -0500 > Para: TS Glassey <tglassey@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > CC: IETF Discussion <ietf@xxxxxxxx>, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ > <jordi.palet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Asunto: Re: Defining the term SPONSOR for the IETF > > On Sat, Dec 22, 2007 at 09:42:14AM -0800, TS Glassey wrote: >> So then Ted isnt the IETF WG list isnt the place where matters without a WG >> are discussed? Is that true? Seems to me that the IETF cannot do that >> without creating a new home for projects without a WG. > > The IPR WG does exist. So discussions about IPR-related matters > should be taken there. If they, however, decide that they don't need > to define a term like "Sponsor", and rule it out of scope on for the > IPR working group, that doesn't mean that it is fair game for the IETF > list. > > Regards, > > - Ted > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ********************************************** The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 ! http://www.ipv6day.org This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited. _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf