On 08/11/16 18:40, S Moonesamy wrote: > Hi Job, > At 06:47 08-11-2016, Job Snijders wrote: >> Since the EPPEXT Working Group has been concluded and evolved into >> regext, I'm reaching out to the bigger group about a document that >> somehow is stuck. > > Did the authors or Working Group address the second part of the DISCUSS? I believe they did. It's so long ago though I forget;-) As to the meat of this, my discuss says "the DISCUSS is to ask did I miss stuff and if not how can WG participants have rationally considered an IPR declaration if the licensing information will only arrive "later" after the document is approved to become an RFC?" As Job says, the reaction from the folks who declared IPR was that they needed a bit of time to check internally. And it seems that they gave that response again again some months later. I also chatted with Job about this a while back and indicated that I'd be willing to clear (though not happy to clear) if the response from the WG (via the chairs or AD) were something like "the WG has consensus to live with the crap situation, seems like it's not improving and we don't have anyone saying it out be blocking." I don't think I ever did hear that back from anyone though. Had I, I would have cleared the discuss. (And apologies if I missed a statement to that effect.) S. > > Regards, > S. Moonesamy > > P.S. There may have been a communication breakdown as the draft started > in EPPEXT which no longer exists. There was also some personnel changes > along the way. >
<<attachment: smime.p7s>>