[ - sieve@xxxxxxxx ] On 1/26/12 10:15 AM, SM wrote: > Hi Pete, > At 08:08 26-01-2012, Pete Resnick wrote: >> As I've mentioned to others, since I'm one of the people who will have >> to judge the consensus on this question, my comments will remain >> strictly based on the facts of the events as I know them and on the >> relevant IETF procedures. It is up to the IETF community > > The status of the memo in the drafts have this statement: > > "This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the > provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79." > > Have the authors been asked whether they have any issue with the above? > > The is a question in the write-up: "Has an IPR disclosure related to > this document been filed?" Has the Document Shepherd been asked about > that before the Second Last Call? > > The minutes from the last WG session does not mention who chaired the > session. Did the WG Chair bring the Note Well to the attention of the WG? In my opinion, we need to think more creatively about ways to encourage compliance with the IPR disclosure rules. Tim Polk and I wrote an I-D on the topic last year. Feedback would be welcome. http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-polk-ipr-disclosure-00 Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf