Subject: Minutes from the Vancouver meeting

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 07:03:17 +0100

Apologies for taking 2 weeks....

the minutes for the IPR WG are attached to this message. Any corrections 
greatly appreciated.

The minutes and all presentations I have have also been uploaded to the 
meeting materials server, and can be viewed at the preliminary minutes 
website. Please inspect!

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

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 08:28:40 +1300

On 2007-12-21 19:03, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:

> * draft-carpenter-ipr-patent-frswds
> Presentation by Scott Brim

...

>     *** Resolution - the room overwhelmingly preferred dropping the proposal.

For the record, I have no objection to this consensus. The idea
of the draft was to test whether there was any support for the
idea, and the conclusion is clear.

     Brian

---

From: "Frank Ellermann" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 18:34:27 +0100

Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
 
> Please inspect!

| *** Resolution - room supports a focussed mailing list for this.

Please take an *existing* list (e.g. *this* if the WG is closed,
or revive one of pecsi / newtrk / ... for Simon's draft).  

Unrelated:

I liked Brian's -00 draft.  E.g. it's not very clear at the moment
what "interoperability and implementation reports" actually should
do.  IMO it should be *input* before a DS Last Call, not some kind
of "mail works for me" poll during LC.  And for a *real* (my POV)
"interoperability and implementation report" an "open" (or similar)
implementation as proposed in Brian's -00 draft is essential.  Two
"closed" implementations agreeing that they'd like to get DS / STD
status are near to pointless.

 Frank