FW: draft-ietf-simple-presence

["Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>]

This is/was my concern: missing IPR statement.
I believe that RFC_Editor will now add the IPR statement,
so as long as that is taken care of, I am OK.

My original concern about using xxx@bar.com instead of xxx@example.com
has been fixed as far as I can tell	

Jacqueline, pls change my DISCUSS to a NoObj

Thanks,
Bert 

-----Original Message-----
From: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) 
Sent: woensdag 5 februari 2003 15:21
To: Patrik Fältström; Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
Cc: Steven M. Bellovin; Harald Alvestrand
Subject: RE: draft-ietf-simple-presence


It is the text in 2026 sect 10.4 (A) and (B) that are required (at least for
stds track and BCP as far as I know) and (D) is required too if we know 
about any IPR claims.

Thanks,
Bert 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Patrik Fältström [mailto:paf@cisco.com]
> Sent: woensdag 5 februari 2003 12:01
> To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
> Cc: Steven M. Bellovin; Harald Alvestrand
> Subject: Re: draft-ietf-simple-presence
> 
> 
> On onsdag, feb 5, 2003, at 11:30 Europe/Stockholm, Wijnen, 
> Bert (Bert) 
> wrote:
> 
> > I also had the remark that I missed IPR sections in all 3 documents.
> > They are still missing. We have a statement in our NITS web page
> > that such is required. Do you want to fix that first or do you want
> > to make an RFC-Editor NOTE that tells them to add it?
> 
> Correct, even though I thought our nits were regarding 
> documents where 
> an IPR issue has been filed. Not that everyone is forced to write 
> "There is no known IPR issues with this document.", something which 
> also might be wrong. The editor might only be aware of some 
> things, and 
> miss others.
> 
> Now I am confused. Confused because I feel this is something new to 
> many and I don't know how to start enforcing it in _all_ documents.
> 
> Given there is no known IPR statements (I did a search on the 
> IPR page) 
> is it the text in 10.4(A) from 2026 you want to have in the document?
> 
> Help!
> 
>     paf
>