Hi Jeff, et al., thank you for the update. I wanted to clarify the second item, the question related to the IPR Disclosure. The first disclosure used the "covenant not to assert" language. The second was to only update the filing status, not the licensing terms. I believe I've clarified that at the time of asking for WG AP. I was informed that there's the update to IPR Disclosure on this work submitted that restores the "covenant not to assert" language. I hope that can be taken into consideration by you and Reshad.
Regards, Greg On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 10:10 PM Jeffrey Haas <jh...@pfrc.org> wrote: > Greg, > > Apologies for the long delay in reply. > > On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 02:40:50PM -0800, Greg Mirsky wrote: > > I respectfully ask to summarize the comments that were shared with you > and > > to publish them to the WG without naming the authors. > > Tersely: > - The document is not addressing fundamental issues. > - It is encumbered by IPR. > - Observed list traffic regarding question on the feature was not > satisfactorily converging. > > > And I have to admit that I don't understand your suggestion to use the > > Errata. The procedures to apply the Demand mode described in the draft > are > > not in contradiction with RFC 5880, so the suggestion to use Errata > > surprised me. > > I will respond on my own analysis in detail hopefully this week. I am > awaiting the resolution of a particular bit of correspondence before > determining the tenor of my response. > > -- Jeff >
