Re: Proposed IESG Statement on IPR Declarations

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

To: adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxx, ietf@xxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Proposed IESG Statement on IPR Declarations
From: Dave Crocker <dhc@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2016 07:03:28 +0100
In-reply-to: <0bf601d1d942$3214fc00$963ef400$@olddog.co.uk>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
References: <20160707202122.23634.18168.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <0bf601d1d942$3214fc00$963ef400$@olddog.co.uk>
Reply-to: dcrocker@xxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0

On 7/8/2016 6:57 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote:

 would advise the IESG to not make a statement in parallel to BCP 79 since alternative wording of the same material will create rather than remove ambiguity.



+1

d/

--

  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking
  bbiw.net

References:
- RE: Proposed IESG Statement on IPR Declarations
  - From: Adrian Farrel

Prev by Date: Re: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-trill-channel-tunnel-10
Next by Date: Re: IETF funding needs (Was: Re: IETF Endowment update)
Previous by thread: Re: Proposed IESG Statement on IPR Declarations
Next by thread: Re: Proposed IESG Statement on IPR Declarations
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

[Index of Archives] [IETF Annoucements] [IETF] [IP Storage] [Yosemite News] [Linux SCTP] [Linux Newbies] [Fedora Users]