• Waiting for Dependency on Other Document
  • IESG Review Completed
  • Awaiting Reviews
  • Revised I-D Needed

ISE

Current state: None

Viewing the last 20 entries. Show full log.

2012-09-30 00:23 (System)

RFC published

2012-07-16 09:46 Cindy Morgan

State changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent

2012-07-10 10:14 Victor Kuarsingh

New revision available

2012-07-09 09:38 Cindy Morgan

State changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent

2012-07-09 09:38 Cindy Morgan

IESG has approved the document

2012-07-09 09:38 Cindy Morgan

Closed "Approve" ballot

2012-07-09 09:38 Cindy Morgan

Ballot approval text was changed

2012-07-09 09:37 Cindy Morgan

Ballot writeup was changed

2012-07-06 15:04 Pearl Liang

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there are no
IANA Actions that need completion.

2012-07-05 10:36 Cindy Morgan

State changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation

2012-07-05 09:40 Barry Leiba

[Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Barry Leiba

2012-07-05 09:39 Stephen Farrell

[Ballot Position Update] Position for Stephen Farrell has been changed to No Objection from Discuss

2012-07-05 08:06 Gonzalo Camarillo

[Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Gonzalo Camarillo

2012-07-05 03:06 Stephen Farrell

[Ballot discuss]

2 discuss-discussses (for the IESG, not the authors/ISE, and should be
sorted out on the call):

1) what's the story with ISE or IETF submissions where the patent application
can't yet be seen (is that the case here? I couldn't see it anyway). Even with
a MAD declaration, how could someone know what things from the RFC are relevant
before the RFC issues if the patent application isn't (yet) public? This was
recently discussed on apps-discuss about another I-D and opinions were stated
that appsawg ought wait until the patent applicaiton in that case was published
before adopting a draft. I guess one might argue that having the ISE put out an
encumbered RFC might impinge on the IETF if we can't know detalis of the
encumbrence before the RFC issues, in that the RRC might get widely deployed
then come back to the IETF with the encumbrance now a fait accompli. So I just
want to check if that particular wrinke has been thrashed out before or not.

2) Was this on the agenda "for-action" but is now on for approval? Given the
author/AD/IPR confluence perhaps this ought not be taken a telechat earlier
than usual, just to avoid any impression of something encumbered being fast
tracked? I'm fine with that given the light agenda, but it might still be
worth a 2-week wait just so this isn't an oddity if someone ever looks back to
the history?

2012-07-05 03:06 Stephen Farrell

[Ballot comment]

I am personally amazed that there's anything here that can be patented
without leading to frequent embarassed silences in the presence of the
"inventors". They (the "inventors") have my sympathy for when they suffer
that. Either that, or else the invention is so good its not obvious to someone
skilled in the art even after reading the draft, but I tend to wonder. (Again,
no action required here, just a comment in passing on a lamentable part
of how our industry is generally behaving these days.)

2012-07-05 03:06 Stephen Farrell

[Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell

2012-07-04 16:24 Pete Resnick

[Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Pete Resnick

2012-07-04 16:11 Ralph Droms

[Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ralph Droms

2012-07-04 09:37 Adrian Farrel

[Ballot comment]
You will need to remove the two citations from the Abstract (converting
them to normal text).

2012-07-04 09:37 Adrian Farrel

[Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Adrian Farrel

Viewing the last 20 entries. Show full log.