Subject: RE: WG Last Call for IPR -incoming document

From: "John Calhoon (LCA)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 13:05:15 -0800

Harald,

I'd like to propose that the last call for IPR-incoming be extended to January 15th for a couple reasons

a)  George has been on sabbatical and won't return until Dec 17th.  My attorney and I would like to discuss specific choices of legal language with George.  We had a conf call with Gil Ohana, who has been covering for George, but Gil  wasn't really in a position to represent George's thinking.  With the holidays upon us, it's unlikely we can talk with George before the new year.

b)  Secondarily, there was an update to the draft to review

Hopefully this delay would not impact the group's ability to get final drafts to the IESG and through IETF LC in time to finish up before March

Thanks

John Calhoon

-----Original Message-----
From: Harald Alvestrand [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, November 26, 2007 2:23 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: WG Last Call for IPR -incoming document

This is the WG Last Call for the following document:

"Rights Contributors provide to the IETF Trust"
draft-ietf-ipr-3978-incoming-03.txt, dated November 13, 2007

with the modification that in section 5.10, the word "requested" is
changed to "directed".
(The document describes a model that is somewhat different from the one
that has traditionally been assumed with regard to authors' rights to
use text; the change to "directed" emphasizes that the WG thinks that it
is essential to have the Trust do as directed here.)

The WG Last Call includes the option of raising issues with the outgoing
document, draft-ietf-ipr-outbound-rights-04.txt, which had a WG Last
Call in July of this year, as long as those issues are concerned with:

1) Resolution of issues raised at that Last Call
2) Changes between version -03 and -04
3) Issues that pertain to the relationship between "-outgoing" and
"-incoming".

This last call starts today, Monday, November 26, and will run until
Monday, December 17, 2007 - a time period that includes an IETF meeting
and a face-to-face meeting of the working group. This allows us an
opportunity to discuss specific issues at the face-to-face meeting, if
participants desire to do so.

The call is three weeks, to make room for the fact that not much review
happens during the IETF meeting. We emphasize that in order to have
issues discussed during the meeting, they must be raised on the mailing
list BEFORE the WG meeting.

To raise an issue, please send a message to the WG mailing list with the
subject line "ISSUE: <incoming|outgoing> <section>: <short description> -
for instance "ISSUE: incoming 6: missing comma".

If the WG chair accepts the issue, or support is shown by other
participants for accepting the issue, a tracker number will be assigned.

For strictly editorial issues, please send mail directly to the editors.

Happy reviewing!

                        Harald Alvestrand, WG chair

_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

---

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 08:25:28 +0100

> Hopefully this delay would not impact the group's ability to get final drafts to the IESG and through IETF LC in time to finish up before March
John,

IETF WG formalisms:

- A WG Last Call is usually terminated on the date given. This call is
already 3 weeks long; your suggestion would make it 7 weeks long - which
seems somewhat extreme.

- A WG makes the decision on whether a document has passed WG Last Call
based on objections raised on the public mailing list. At this moment,
your concerns have been raised with Gil Ohana, but not on the mailing
list. As such, the WG cannot base a decision on the existence of those
issues.

- The updated version of the document was made in an attempt to publish
specific language to address issues raised during the WG Last Call, and
thus can be regarded as getting an early start on the post-Last Call
process. If you believe the changes are not successful in addressing
those issues, or if you believe the changes raise new issues, you are of
course free to state that you have issues with those changes; if there
are significant changes after a WG Last Call, we commonly hold a second
Last Call (relatively short - a week or so) to address just those changes.

In summary: Please send your issues (those that remain after your
discussions with Gil) to the list, and let's consider them as part of
post-Last Call processing. If delay in sending the documents to the IESG
is warranted, we can do that without extending the Last Call.

                       Harald