Re: [alto] IETF 96 agenda requests -- Topology extensions

[Greg Bernstein]

Hi all since some of our original Internet Drafts association with ALTO 
"topology extensions" our well out of date, those that are interested 
may want to look at a technical paper that Young and I put together back 
in 2012 
(http://www.grotto-networking.com/files/BandwidthConstraintModeling.pdf). 
This has motivations, concepts, alternative representations and color 
highlighted figures to aid in comprehension.  We also have the short (11 
slide) presentation that we gave at the Vancouver 2012 IETF for those 
that never saw it or need to job their memory.


Cheers

Greg B.


On 7/5/2016 10:27 AM, Vijay K. Gurbani wrote:

On 07/05/2016 12:25 PM, Y. Richard Yang wrote:

Vijay,

Please see inline. [...] OK. We should target posting a spec by this
Friday so that we can discuss the spec before the meeting, to remove
any confusion/bewilderment. Since the key piece is encoding
specification of (1) graph; and (2) path vector associated w/ a
graph. We will target posting those spec, precisely first.


Richard: Awesome!  Thanks.

- vijay


___
alto mailing list
alto@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto

Re: [alto] IETF 96 agenda requests

[Vijay K. Gurbani]

On 07/05/2016 12:25 PM, Y. Richard Yang wrote:

Vijay,

Please see inline. [...] OK. We should target posting a spec by this
Friday so that we can discuss the spec before the meeting, to remove
any confusion/bewilderment. Since the key piece is encoding
specification of (1) graph; and (2) path vector associated w/ a
graph. We will target posting those spec, precisely first.


Richard: Awesome!  Thanks.

- vijay
--
Vijay K. Gurbani, Bell Laboratories, Nokia Networks
1960 Lucent Lane, Rm. 9C-533, Naperville, Illinois 60563 (USA)
Email: v...@bell-labs.com / vijay.gurb...@nokia-bell-labs.com
Web: http://ect.bell-labs.com/who/vkg/  | Calendar: http://goo.gl/x3Ogq

___
alto mailing list
alto@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto

Re: [alto] IETF 96 agenda requests

[Y. Richard Yang]

Vijay,

Please see inline.

On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 1:04 PM, Vijay K. Gurbani  wrote:

> On Monday, Jul 4, 2016 "Y. Richard Yang"  wrote:
>
> Vijay, Jan, all,
>>
>> I am replying this email publicly so that all of us can engage more
>> in shaping the agenda in about three weeks.
>>
>> A key item that the WG needs to discuss, in the potentially more
>> productive f2f-meeting setting in Berlin, is how the WG should move
>> forward. Can we allocate a slot, say at least 20 min, for this
>> discussion?
>>
>
> Richard: ACK.  More inline.
>
> Besides the general discussions, here are some comments on specific
>> agenda items and the mission of the WG:
>>
>> - Despite the substantial change of the networking landscape, I still
>> believe that the foundational services of ALTO are sound: providing
>> abstract network information to applications. I believe that this is
>> also what many others see ALTO; for example see [1]. The key is what
>> we do to go beyond the initial network abstractions.
>>
>
> - The first I see is Endpoint Cost Service (ECS), which is the
>> foundation. It provides an interface to allow applications to know
>> the routing costs. However, current ALTO is defined pre-SDN, and the
>> emerging trend of SDN is going beyond simple destination routing, to
>> be more application dependent. Hence, I see that we need to go beyond
>> Endpoint Cost Service, to say Flow Cost Service. There is an
>> extension draft [2], and I suggest that the WG finishes this to make
>> the ALTO protocol complete. Make sense?
>>
>
> The ecs-flow draft has been around for a couple of months.  I don't
> think it has attracted WG attention, despite being headed in the right
> direction with respect to the abstraction that involves application-
> constraints during routing decisions.
>
> -  The next I see is network graph (path vector) abstraction. The
>> more I think about it, the more I am convinced that this is the way
>> we go. I am an author of the draft and multiple versions are evolving
>> [3, 4, 5], but we are relatively slow in convergence. I suggest that
>> the WG gets a set of active participants to finish this draft, so
>> that we have a relatively complete set of ALTO services.
>>
>
> The above will be imperative, I believe.  I may well be wrong and it may
> just be me, but I still sense a bit of bewilderment as the convergence
> occurs.  Most of the time, these drafts gets discussed around a pending
> meeting.  I think it is necessary to crisply define and finish this
> work as soon as possible.
>
>
OK. We should target posting a spec by this Friday so that we can discuss
the spec
before the meeting, to remove any confusion/bewilderment. Since the key
piece is
encoding specification of (1) graph; and (2) path vector associated w/ a
graph. We will target posting those spec, precisely first.

Thanks,
Richard




> [1]
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.opendaylight.org_file_odl-2Dberyllium-2Ddiagram02=CwICaQ=-dg2m7zWuuDZ0MUcV7Sdqw=4G36iiEVb2m_v-0RnP2gx9KZJjYQgfvrOCE3789JGIA=adhagbZSLa5CB30jrM471w53fmh23nxWmJzt3jJW07c=ECAY29NKpa-pzUFGnbFKc14RscT_yWXOudwbFTF_JOA=
>> [2]
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__datatracker.ietf.org_doc_draft-2Dwang-2Dalto-2Decs-2Dflows_=CwICaQ=-dg2m7zWuuDZ0MUcV7Sdqw=4G36iiEVb2m_v-0RnP2gx9KZJjYQgfvrOCE3789JGIA=adhagbZSLa5CB30jrM471w53fmh23nxWmJzt3jJW07c=KoT7ZAqiWhT9v8F789UjuxAXfsWYGhVHJ8ky_4a1iYA=
>> [3]
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__datatracker.ietf.org_doc_draft-2Dgao-2Dalto-2Drouting-2Dstate-2Dabstraction_=CwICaQ=-dg2m7zWuuDZ0MUcV7Sdqw=4G36iiEVb2m_v-0RnP2gx9KZJjYQgfvrOCE3789JGIA=adhagbZSLa5CB30jrM471w53fmh23nxWmJzt3jJW07c=SQw1tvpbmAAef8M7j2zUxUpRDNjT962ij0EwRRAwTe8=
>> [4]
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tools.ietf.org_html_draft-2Dyang-2Dalto-2Dtopology-2D06=CwICaQ=-dg2m7zWuuDZ0MUcV7Sdqw=4G36iiEVb2m_v-0RnP2gx9KZJjYQgfvrOCE3789JGIA=adhagbZSLa5CB30jrM471w53fmh23nxWmJzt3jJW07c=iHLFCmBP0BOPkNSlv7GTtgbIKJOsJC3QVv5vYEGDp1s=
>> [5]
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tools.ietf.org_html_draft-2Dscharf-2Dalto-2Dtopology-2D00=CwICaQ=-dg2m7zWuuDZ0MUcV7Sdqw=4G36iiEVb2m_v-0RnP2gx9KZJjYQgfvrOCE3789JGIA=adhagbZSLa5CB30jrM471w53fmh23nxWmJzt3jJW07c=I7IDwEnKJY80JCz52SuKsoi4Fj6eedjJuwWkNGYsFOM=
>>
>
> Thanks,
>
> - vijay
> --
> Vijay K. Gurbani, Bell Laboratories, Nokia Networks
> 1960 Lucent Lane, Rm. 9C-533, Naperville, Illinois 60563 (USA)
> Email: v...@bell-labs.com / vijay.gurb...@nokia-bell-labs.com
> Web:
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__ect.bell-2Dlabs.com_who_vkg_=CwICaQ=-dg2m7zWuuDZ0MUcV7Sdqw=4G36iiEVb2m_v-0RnP2gx9KZJjYQgfvrOCE3789JGIA=adhagbZSLa5CB30jrM471w53fmh23nxWmJzt3jJW07c=CVBjaDcXsvH5d3XzEDkwYshYN1iFjR4RHwwPFmxfPIY=
>  | Calendar:
> 

Re: [alto] IETF 96 agenda requests

[Vijay K. Gurbani]

On 07/05/2016 12:17 PM, Y. Richard Yang wrote:

It indeed is a good time to quickly converge on the exact encoding
details so that we can move forward. This should be a high priority item
and let's work out the details during this IETF. I will focus on it and
propose an encoding shortly.


Excellent.  This will go a long way to convergence and uniform
understanding.

Cheers,

- vijay
--
Vijay K. Gurbani, Bell Laboratories, Nokia Networks
1960 Lucent Lane, Rm. 9C-533, Naperville, Illinois 60563 (USA)
Email: v...@bell-labs.com / vijay.gurb...@nokia-bell-labs.com
Web: http://ect.bell-labs.com/who/vkg/  | Calendar: http://goo.gl/x3Ogq

___
alto mailing list
alto@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto

Re: [alto] IETF 96 agenda requests

[Greg Bernstein]

Hi Richard and all, for the last few years I've been teaching and 
working in the SDN space and mostly agree with Richard's assessment. The 
only disagreement is with his assessment of "slow" convergence of the 
network graph/(path vector) drafts. These drafts are basically in 
conceptual agreement and have been for quite some time (2012 Vancouver 
meeting). The exact encoding details were not worked out at the time, 
but could be quickly converged based on examples that have been given in 
the more recent drafts.



The applicability of such a feature to SDN virtualized networks 
hopefully should be clear but we can easily add it as another 
application/motivation.


On 7/4/2016 4:06 PM, Y. Richard Yang wrote:

Vijay, Jan, all,

I am replying this email publicly so that all of us can engage more in 
shaping the agenda in about three weeks.


A key item that the WG needs to discuss, in the potentially more 
productive f2f-meeting setting in Berlin, is how the WG should move 
forward. Can we allocate a slot, say at least 20 min, for this discussion?


Besides the general discussions, here are some comments on specific 
agenda items and the mission of the WG:


- Despite the substantial change of the networking landscape, I still 
believe that the foundational services of ALTO are sound: providing 
abstract network information to applications. I believe that this is 
also what many others see ALTO; for example see [1]. The key is what 
we do to go beyond the initial network abstractions.


- The first I see is Endpoint Cost Service (ECS), which is the 
foundation. It provides an interface to allow applications to know the 
routing costs. However, current ALTO is defined pre-SDN, and the 
emerging trend of SDN is going beyond simple destination routing, to 
be more application dependent. Hence, I see that we need to go beyond 
Endpoint Cost Service, to say Flow Cost Service. There is an extension 
draft [2], and I suggest that the WG finishes this to make the ALTO 
protocol complete. Make sense?


-  The next I see is network graph (path vector) abstraction. The more 
I think about it, the more I am convinced that this is the way we go. 
I am an author of the draft and multiple versions are evolving [3, 4, 
5], but we are relatively slow in convergence. I suggest that the WG 
gets a set of active participants to finish this draft, so that we 
have a relatively complete set of ALTO services.


Cheers,
Richard

[1] https://www.opendaylight.org/file/odl-beryllium-diagram02
[2] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wang-alto-ecs-flows/
[3] 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-gao-alto-routing-state-abstraction/

[4] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-yang-alto-topology-06
[5] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-scharf-alto-topology-00

On Wednesday, June 29, 2016, Vijay K. Gurbani > wrote:


Folks: Please send me and Jan agenda requests for the ALTO WG meeting
in IETF.  We have a 2 hour slot on Thu afternoon (July 21).

Specifically:

  - Presenter name
  - Time requested (in minutes)
  - Internet-Draft to be discussed

As usual, drafts that have seen list discussions will be given
precedence when scheduling the agenda.

As you are all aware, the deployment draft is now with the IESG.
As per our last meeting (virtual interm [1]), we need to move two
drafts ahead: (1) draft-ietf-alto-multi-cost-01 needs to be scheduled
for a WGLC, and (2) draft-randriamasy-alto-cost-calendar-05 needs
to be
open up to being adopted as a WG item.  Jan and I will like to start
proceeding on this perhaps as early as next week.

[1]

https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_proceedings_interim_2015_10_27_alto_minutes_minutes-2Dinterim-2D2015-2Dalto-2D1=CwICAg=-dg2m7zWuuDZ0MUcV7Sdqw=4G36iiEVb2m_v-0RnP2gx9KZJjYQgfvrOCE3789JGIA=ASHRozEgZvFCzydTsT-P7fLIy1RVC6ciNuTtWDmqNtM=ghe2Ca7B5zd4u_ZWbLeZZ5oexLFxV07x-MYfkipmAk4=

Thank you,

- vijay
-- 
Vijay K. Gurbani, Bell Laboratories, Nokia Networks

1960 Lucent Lane, Rm. 9C-533, Naperville, Illinois 60563 (USA)
Email: v...@bell-labs.com / vijay.gurb...@nokia-bell-labs.com
Web:

https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__ect.bell-2Dlabs.com_who_vkg_=CwICAg=-dg2m7zWuuDZ0MUcV7Sdqw=4G36iiEVb2m_v-0RnP2gx9KZJjYQgfvrOCE3789JGIA=ASHRozEgZvFCzydTsT-P7fLIy1RVC6ciNuTtWDmqNtM=TgjoQbo9aR1PTVWRY6Ydlw_khODlDN6l8OaFh4fS1ZA=
 | Calendar:

https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__goo.gl_x3Ogq=CwICAg=-dg2m7zWuuDZ0MUcV7Sdqw=4G36iiEVb2m_v-0RnP2gx9KZJjYQgfvrOCE3789JGIA=ASHRozEgZvFCzydTsT-P7fLIy1RVC6ciNuTtWDmqNtM=1Q7R5p_enzJxoGM_E41qNrEhCWmfOrjLsuv6jL-Sw64=

___
alto mailing list
alto@ietf.org

[alto] IPR disclosure on ietf-alto-alto-deployments

[Vijay K. Gurbani]

Folks: Pursuant to Mirja's email [1], Jan and I take this opportunity
to remind anyone on the list to respond with any concerns on moving
draft-ietf-alto-deployments forward.

It is imperative that the bounds of this discussion are understood
uniformly, and these are: There is no IPR being claimed against draft-
ietf-alto-deployments.  The draft simply appears as a reference in
patent applications.  Patent applications routinely include references
to other patents, academic papers, and standards documents.  However,
each such reference is not an IPR declaration.  In this particular
case, draft-ietf-alto-deployments is a general (informative) draft that
explains the use of ALTO in various scenarios, and has been used as a
reference in patent applications.  The draft itself is not suggesting
any specific method or processes that are subject to IPR.

Furthermore, in the particular case of draft-ietf-alto-deployments, the
authors of the patent applications in question have stated that the
draft itself is not subject to IPR protection and can proceed.

As such, the chairs and AD are of the opinion that the draft can
proceed.  Please let us know if you disagree and state your opinion on
the disagreement to the list.

Thanks,

[1] https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/alto/current/msg03096.html

- vijay
--
Vijay K. Gurbani, Bell Laboratories, Nokia Networks
1960 Lucent Lane, Rm. 9C-533, Naperville, Illinois 60563 (USA)
Email: v...@bell-labs.com / vijay.gurb...@nokia-bell-labs.com
Web: http://ect.bell-labs.com/who/vkg/  | Calendar: http://goo.gl/x3Ogq

___
alto mailing list
alto@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto

Re: [alto] IPR Disclosure Carlos Pignataro's Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-alto-deployments belonging to Alcatel Lucent

[Jari Arkko]

I don’t personally know anything about this technology or the patents in 
question. Also, IANAL and I don’t plan to play on this list. However, a couple 
of process or general clarifications may be in order.

First, anybody can (but does not have to) make third party declaration, if he 
or she is aware of IPR that might cover the draft in question. No search is 
necessary to do this, as a person may just be aware of an IPR for some reason.

Second, if you are interested in a particular technology you probably need to 
assess patent declarations in some fashion. The IESG does not validate them in 
any way, nor do we in any organised fashion check them at working groups 
either. But, they may affect individual assessments to “is this the technology 
that I want to standardise in the working group”? Hence Mirja’s email to the 
list and her question if it changes something. Sometimes the answer is that new 
information about IPR causes a change in your assessment. Sometimes it doesn’t 
cause a change. There are also IPR declarations where you know there’s prior 
art. Or IPR declarations where your assessment may be that it does not cover 
the technology in question, despite what the declaration says.

Third, be aware what constitutes a patent actually covering your technology. In 
patents there are for instance usually tons of references to existing practices 
and background. Mere mention of technology in a patent document doesn’t render 
it covered.

Fourth, people who are actual contributors in the working group have a stricter 
requirement to file declarations than others. If a contributor believes an IPR 
that they are personally aware of covers the technology, he or she must make an 
IPR declaration. The lack of an IPR declaration might either mean that the rule 
was not followed, or that the contributor simply does not believe the IPR 
covers the technology.

Jari



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
___
alto mailing list
alto@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto

Re: [alto] IPR Disclosure Carlos Pignataro's Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-alto-deployments belonging to Alcatel Lucent

[Sebastian Kiesel]

Richard,

On Mon, Jul 04, 2016 at 07:57:45PM -0400, Y. Richard Yang wrote:
> I am reading up the patent application.
> 
> Given that one of the inventors is Sabine, who is a quite active member of
> this WG, could we ask her to take one more look at the deployment document
> and share any comments on potential relevance, if any?

I am not sure whether this makes sense.

Assuming that Sabine made the invention but did not write the patent text 
herself, her analysis might be more or less biased by her original idea.
However, our problem now is not (so much) what the original invention
was, but more what could be considered by lawyers as being covered by
the wording of the patents.

S.

___
alto mailing list
alto@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto

Re: [alto] IPR Disclosure Carlos Pignataro's Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-alto-deployments belonging to Alcatel Lucent

[Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)]

Michael,

I won’t comment on the content of the application, but please find a couple 
clarifications inline.

> On Jul 5, 2016, at 7:00 AM, Scharf, Michael (Nokia - DE) 
>  wrote:
> 
> Carlos,
> 
> I can only comment on the second document listed in the third-party IPR 
> disclosure (http://www.google.com/patents/WO2016039798A1#npl-citations). I 
> have not been aware of the first one. Regarding the second patent 
> application, I am a bit confused by the intent of this IPR disclosure. 
> 

The intent of an IPR disclosure is to inform IETF WGs and participants. 

> To add some context: There is a publication, and actually that text may be 
> easier to read:
> 
>  Michael Scharf, Gordon T. Wilfong, Lisa Zhang: "Sparsifying network 
> topologies for application guidance", Proceedings of IFIP/IEEE IM 2015, May 
> 2015, pages 234-242 (http://dl.ifip.org/db/conf/im/im2015/135438.pdf)
> 
> That paper refers to draft-ietf-alto-deployments at various places to explain 
> the background of ALTO (reference [4]). So, it is not surprise that 
> draft-ietf-alto-deployments is cited in the patent application. I am not a 
> lawyer. However, if I had assumed that an action according to RFC 3979 is 
> required in this situation, an IPR disclosure would obviously have been 
> submitted.
> 
> In general, draft-ietf-alto-deployments is a long informational document that 
> surveys quite a number of use cases and technologies. Given that widely used 
> technologies such as CDN optimization and methods to obtain dynamic 
> connected-network topology via nodes are mentioned, it would be a huge 
> surprise to me there was no other IPR "somehow" related to some wording in 
> draft-ietf-alto-deployments, including e.g. IPR owned by Cisco Technology, 
> Inc. However, I am not sure what value IPR disclosures have for such an 
> informational document that does not give normative guidance.
> 

Analysis is for the WG participants and potential implications (if any) to the 
WG (i.e., the IETF makes no determination about validity, informed decision, 
etc.)

> Regarding the process, I am actually surprised that a patent search has been 
> performed as part of an OPS-DIR review, given e.g. what is written in RFC 
> 5706 Appendix A. And I think the wording of RFC 3979 Section 6.1.3 is that a 
> third party IPR disclosure is "encouraged". So far I have assumed that this 
> wording does not imply "mandatory". Maybe the IESG can better explain that?

This comment is concerning to me. I performed an OPS-Dir review of 
draft-ietf-alto-deployments based-15 solely on Operational considerations, and 
RFC 5706 Appendix A. (By the way, I have not seen a response to that review.) 
However, I have *not* (of course!) performed a patent search. I do not 
understand the basis of you making that comment. If I am looking for IETF LC 
comments on specific operational issues, and Google search serves those hits 
over and over (which someone cannot unsee), I think the responsible thing is to 
disclose, and it is up for the WG to evaluate.

Thanks,

— Carlos.

> 
> Michael
> 
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) [mailto:cpign...@cisco.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2016 1:48 AM
> To: Mirja Kühlewind
> Cc: IETF discussion list; draft-ietf-alto-deployme...@ietf.org; alto@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [alto] IPR Disclosure Carlos Pignataro's Statement about IPR 
> related to draft-ietf-alto-deployments belonging to Alcatel Lucent
> 
> Hi, Mirja,
> 
> One clarification, for the record, inline.
> 
>> On Jul 4, 2016, at 11:47 AM, Mirja Kühlewind 
>>  wrote:
>> 
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> find below an IPR disclosure that was filed last week related to 
>> draft-ietf-alto-deployments. This is a third-party disclosure for a patent 
>> application that lists this draft as ‚document to be considered related‘. 
>> See:
>> 
>> https://data.epo.org/publication-server/rest/v1.0/publication-dates/20
>> 150902/patents/EP2913979NWA1/document.pdf
>> 
>> The IETF last call for draft-ietf-alto-deployments was performed between 
>> June 7 and June 21, 2016, while the IPR disclosure was submitted afterwards 
>> (as reaction to the OPS-DIR review).
>> 
> 
> I was actually the OPS-Dir Reviewer assigned to 
> draft-ietf-alto-deployments-15.
> 
> I submitted my OPS-Dir review delayed, after the IETF LC ended, because I was 
> on vacation (and unreachable) when I received the OPS-Dir review assignment. 
> As part of my review, as I came across those two (not only the one you 
> include above) published patent applications potentially relating to the 
> subject matter as indicated in non-patent citations, I had to submit that 3rd 
> party disclosure.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> — Carlos.
> 
>> If this disclosure raises any concerns regarding the publication of this 
>> draft as RFC, please state your opinion on the alto@ietf.org mailing.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Mirja - responsible AD
>> 
>> 
>>> Am 27.06.2016 um 17:42 

Re: [alto] IPR Disclosure Carlos Pignataro's Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-alto-deployments belonging to Alcatel Lucent

[S Moonesamy]

Hi Mirja,
At 08:47 04-07-2016, Mirja Kühlewind wrote:
The IETF last call for 
draft-ietf-alto-deployments was performed 
between June 7 and June 21, 2016, while the IPR 
disclosure was submitted afterwards (as reaction to the OPS-DIR review).


If this disclosure raises any concerns regarding 
the publication of this draft as RFC, please 
state your opinion on the alto@ietf.org mailing.


There is the following in the document shepherd write-up:

  "The second WGLC was reviewed by Sabine Randriamasy,
   resulting in version -14 that addressed her review."

https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2814/ lists a 
document in which the name in the quoted text is 
listed as one of the inventors.


I suggest sending a reminder (please see RFC 
6702) and running another IETF Last Call.


Regards,
S. Moonesamy 


___
alto mailing list
alto@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto

Re: [alto] IPR Disclosure Carlos Pignataro's Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-alto-deployments belonging to Alcatel Lucent

[Scharf, Michael (Nokia - DE)]

Carlos,

I can only comment on the second document listed in the third-party IPR 
disclosure (http://www.google.com/patents/WO2016039798A1#npl-citations). I have 
not been aware of the first one. Regarding the second patent application, I am 
a bit confused by the intent of this IPR disclosure. 

To add some context: There is a publication, and actually that text may be 
easier to read:

  Michael Scharf, Gordon T. Wilfong, Lisa Zhang: "Sparsifying network 
topologies for application guidance", Proceedings of IFIP/IEEE IM 2015, May 
2015, pages 234-242 (http://dl.ifip.org/db/conf/im/im2015/135438.pdf)

That paper refers to draft-ietf-alto-deployments at various places to explain 
the background of ALTO (reference [4]). So, it is not surprise that 
draft-ietf-alto-deployments is cited in the patent application. I am not a 
lawyer. However, if I had assumed that an action according to RFC 3979 is 
required in this situation, an IPR disclosure would obviously have been 
submitted.

In general, draft-ietf-alto-deployments is a long informational document that 
surveys quite a number of use cases and technologies. Given that widely used 
technologies such as CDN optimization and methods to obtain dynamic 
connected-network topology via nodes are mentioned, it would be a huge surprise 
to me there was no other IPR "somehow" related to some wording in 
draft-ietf-alto-deployments, including e.g. IPR owned by Cisco Technology, Inc. 
However, I am not sure what value IPR disclosures have for such an 
informational document that does not give normative guidance.

Regarding the process, I am actually surprised that a patent search has been 
performed as part of an OPS-DIR review, given e.g. what is written in RFC 5706 
Appendix A. And I think the wording of RFC 3979 Section 6.1.3 is that a third 
party IPR disclosure is "encouraged". So far I have assumed that this wording 
does not imply "mandatory". Maybe the IESG can better explain that?

Michael



-Original Message-
From: Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) [mailto:cpign...@cisco.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2016 1:48 AM
To: Mirja Kühlewind
Cc: IETF discussion list; draft-ietf-alto-deployme...@ietf.org; alto@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [alto] IPR Disclosure Carlos Pignataro's Statement about IPR 
related to draft-ietf-alto-deployments belonging to Alcatel Lucent

Hi, Mirja,

One clarification, for the record, inline.

> On Jul 4, 2016, at 11:47 AM, Mirja Kühlewind 
>  wrote:
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> find below an IPR disclosure that was filed last week related to 
> draft-ietf-alto-deployments. This is a third-party disclosure for a patent 
> application that lists this draft as ‚document to be considered related‘. See:
> 
> https://data.epo.org/publication-server/rest/v1.0/publication-dates/20
> 150902/patents/EP2913979NWA1/document.pdf
> 
> The IETF last call for draft-ietf-alto-deployments was performed between June 
> 7 and June 21, 2016, while the IPR disclosure was submitted afterwards (as 
> reaction to the OPS-DIR review).
> 

I was actually the OPS-Dir Reviewer assigned to draft-ietf-alto-deployments-15.

I submitted my OPS-Dir review delayed, after the IETF LC ended, because I was 
on vacation (and unreachable) when I received the OPS-Dir review assignment. As 
part of my review, as I came across those two (not only the one you include 
above) published patent applications potentially relating to the subject matter 
as indicated in non-patent citations, I had to submit that 3rd party disclosure.

Thanks,

— Carlos.

> If this disclosure raises any concerns regarding the publication of this 
> draft as RFC, please state your opinion on the alto@ietf.org mailing.
> 
> Thanks,
> Mirja - responsible AD
> 
> 
>> Am 27.06.2016 um 17:42 schrieb IETF Secretariat :
>> 
>> Dear Martin Stiemerling, Sebastian Kiesel, Stefano Previdi, Michael Scharf, 
>> Hans Seidel:
>> 
>> 
>> An IPR disclosure that pertains to your Internet-Draft entitled "ALTO 
>> Deployment Considerations" (draft-ietf-alto-deployments) was 
>> submitted to the IETF Secretariat on  and has been posted on the 
>> "IETF Page of Intellectual Property Rights Disclosures" 
>> (https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2814/). The title of the IPR 
>> disclosure is "Carlos Pignataro's Statement about IPR related to 
>> draft-ietf-alto-deployments belonging to Alcatel Lucent"
>> 
>> 
>> Thank you
>> 
>> IETF Secretariat
>> 
>> ___
>> alto mailing list
>> alto@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
> 

___
alto mailing list
alto@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto