It might (or might not :-) help if I give some clarification of my position on
this draft.
[I'm not trying to tell the chairs how to do their job!]
We are not in a position at the moment to make our own individual assessments of
whether or how the disclosed IPR covers the draft. This is because we cannot yet
see the content of the IPR filed in the disclosed application. That means we can
take one of two approaches:
1. Assume that the IPR covers a substantial portion of the draft
2. Wait and see
In the first case we have to decide whether we want to go ahead with this work
on that assumption and in the knowledge of the licensing terms. The alternatives
are:
a. Abandon the work
b. Re-invent the solution to avoid the IPR (which necessarily involves waiting
until we can read it)
c. Carry on regardless deciding that we are willing to live with the disclosure
In the second case we would delay progression until we can see the IPR and
decide what to do. The alternative would then be exactly the same a, b, and c as
above.
It might be pragmatic to continue to work on the current draft. That work could
happen without adoption (lack of adoption is not reason not to work on the
draft, and the unadopted draft can still be "under the care of the WG") or could
include adoption. If the draft is adopted, however, I would be very wary of the
implied momentum: that is, when the WG has been working on the draft for a while
it must not be taken to imply that any consensus was reached with respect to the
IPR and it must be understood that the discussion was deferred not concluded.
Future arguments that "we have invested so much time and effort" will not carry
water!
All that considered, I would be OK to see work continue on the document pending
availability of the IPR in the hope that when we can see the IPR we will attempt
to find a solution that avoids the IPR.
Cheers,
Adrian
From: rtgwg [mailto:rtgwg-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Chris Bowers
Sent: 20 October 2016 16:11
To: rt...@ietf.org; rtg-bfd@ietf.org
Subject: RE: WG adoption poll on draft-nitish-vrrp-bfd-04
RTGWG,
At this point, I don't think that there is a consensus for the working group to
adopt this draft
without more discussion of the issue raised by Loa Andersson and Adrian Farrel
in the
following two emails.
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtgwg/current/msg05712.html
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtgwg/current/msg05718.html
The main objection raised in these two emails is that the working group should
work on
solutions that are either unencumbered by IPR or that are available on
free-to-implementers
terms. Loa and Adrian also point out that the current lack of visibility to
the patent
application covered by the IPR disclosure for this draft means that it is
currently not possible to
evaluate this situation with respect to this draft.
The reason for the IPR disclosure process is to allow working groups to take
into consideration
the potential licensing of IPR when evaluating alternative technical solutions.
At this point,
adopting draft-nitish-vrrp-bfd-04 as the basis for work on standardizing the use
of VRRP
with BFD without more discussion of this issue would imply that there is
consensus that
the working group should not take potential licensing of IPR into account for
this work.
I don't think there is currently consensus for this.
I encourage further discussion of this issue. I think that there may be the
potential to
reach a consensus if the working group can come to an explicit agreement about
whether
or not potential licensing of IPR should be taken into account when evaluating
alternative
technologies for this work.
Chris
_____________________________________________
From: Chris Bowers
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2016 10:44 AM
To: 'rt...@ietf.org' <rt...@ietf.org>; rtg-bfd@ietf.org
Subject: WG adoption poll on draft-nitish-vrrp-bfd-04
RTGWG,
This email starts a two week poll to gauge consensus on adopting
draft-nitish-vrrp-bfd-04
as an RTGWG working group document.
The BFD working group is also copied on this adoption poll. We encourage
participants in
BFD working group to provide their input on the adoption poll. And should this
document
be adopted as an RTGWG document, we would plan to copy the BFD WG on emails
related to this document to benefit from the BFD expertise in that WG in the
development
of this document.
Please send your comments to the RTGWG mailing list ( <mailto:rt...@ietf.org>
rt...@ietf.org) indicating support
or opposition to the adoption of this document, along with the reasoning for
that support
or opposition.
If you are listed as a document author or contributor, please respond to this
email stating
whether or not you are aware of any relevant IPR. The response needs to be
sent to the
RTGWG mailing list. The document will not advance to the next stage until a
response has
been received from each author and each individual that has contributed to the
document.
At this point, the document has the following IPR disclosure associated with it.
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2739/> https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2739/
This adoption poll will end on Friday October 14th.
Thanks,
Chris and Jeff
