Re: IPR Disclosure: The Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York's Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-nsis-tunnel-13

Hi,

[sorry, previous message was cut, I accidentally hit the send button
instead of the edit menu :-)]

On 08.12.2010 08:55, Fu, Xiaoming wrote:
> I would vote for c).

It's not clear to me what prevents the Columbia University
from changing terms back later if they are changing the terms
now on our request?

> a) Do members of the WG accept those terms,
> b) Do you want to redesign the protocol to work around the IPR,
> c) Do you want to ask Columbia to modify the terms, or
> d) Do we drop the document from the WG (authors can still pursue publications through the independent track)?

Jukka said:
> Please indicate your preference within two weeks, by Friday 17th at:
> 
> http://www.doodle.com/mb2gvfit64bnya99 

Regards,
 Roland