> issue here. The reason that we have an IPR rule that asks us to
> declare what the terms of a license are is so that the working groups'
> members can evaluate both the applicability of the potentially
> encumbering patents and the terms of the license.
Yes, sorry: I was conflating this thread with the other one(s?) that are specifically looking at how to address the late disclosures (for which the issue really is how to deal with the failure to disclose, regardless of the terms eventually offered). This thread is about the Sieve documents in question, so, yes, you're right that the terms are relevant. I hadn't meant to say we shouldn't think about that with respect to the two Sieve documents.
Barry
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf