Hi all,
I support all the three drafts to be published. They're useful enhancements to base BFD protocol, short and well-written. BRs, Xiao Min 原始邮件 发件人：SantoshPK <santosh.pallaga...@gmail.com> 收件人：Ashesh Mishra <mishra.ash...@outlook.com>; 抄送人：rtg-bfd@ietf.org <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>; 日 期 ：2019年09月13日 01:10 主 题 ：Re: Working Group Last Call on BFD Authentication Documents (expiresSeptember 13, 2019) I support all three documents. On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 9:22 AM Ashesh Mishra <mishra.ash...@outlook.com> wrote: As author, I support all three drafts. On Sep 10, 2019, at 7:13 PM, Manav Bhatia <manavbha...@gmail.com> wrote: I support all 3 documents. On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 8:45 PM Jeffrey Haas <jh...@pfrc.org> wrote: Working Group, As we discussed in Montreal at IETF-105, the last hang up on progressing the authentication documents (thread copied below) was concerns on the IPR against them. The holder of the IPR believes their discloures are consistent with prior IPR posted against the BFD suite of published RFCs.o We are thus proceeding with the Working Group Last Call for these documents.... You are encouraged to provide technical feedback for the contents of the documents, which addresses providing stronger authentication on the BFD protocol. Please indicate whether you believe these documents should be advanced to the IESG for publication as RFCs. -- Jeff and Reshad On Tue, Jul 02, 2019 at 02:37:15PM -0400, Jeffrey Haas wrote: > Working Group, > > A followup on this item. > > Currently, the status is identical to that which was last posted. Mahesh > did make contact with Ciena IPR holders regarding the state of the license. > It is their belief that their disclosure is consistent with similar IPR > filed against BFD. Citing two similar ones: > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/516/ > https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1419/ > > It also appears to be their belief that the current wording doesn't require > that a license fee is due. However, this is private commentary. > > At this point, my recommendation to the working group is we decide if we'll > proceed with the publication process. Let's use this time prior to IETF 105 > to discuss any pending issues on these documents. > > -- Jeff > > On Sat, Feb 16, 2019 at 12:07:40PM -0500, Jeffrey Haas wrote: > > Working Group, > > > > On March 28, 2018, we started Working Group Last Call on the following > > document > > bundle: > > > > draft-ietf-bfd-secure-sequence-numbers > > draft-ietf-bfd-optimizing-authentication > > draft-ietf-bfd-stability > > > > The same day, Mahesh Jethanandani acknowledged there was pending IPR > > declarations against these drafts. An IPR declaration was finally posted on > > November 1, 2018. In particular, it notes a patent. The licenseing is > > RAND. > > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/3328/ > > > > In the time since the WGLC was requested, there were a number of technical > > comments made on these drafts. It's my belief that all substantial > > technical comments had been addressed in the last posted version of these > > documents. Note that there was one lingering comment about Yang > > considerations for the BFD module with regard to enabling this optimized > > authentication mode which can be dealt with separably. > > > > The chairs did not carry out a further consensus call to ensure that there > > are no further outstanding technical issues. > > > > On November 21, Greg Mirsky indicated an objection to progressing the > > document due to late disclosure. > > > > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/u8rvWwvDWRKI3jseGHecAB9WtDo > > > > Since we are a little over a month prior to the upcoming IETF 104, this > > seems a good time to try to decide how the Working Group shall finish this > > work. Since we are meeting in Prague, this may progress to microphone > > conversation. > > > > For the moment, the chairs' perceived status of the documents are: > > - No pending technical issues with the documents with one known issue. > > - Concerns over late disclosure of IPR. > > - No solid consensus from the Working Group that we're ready to proceed. > > This part may be covered by a future consensus call, but let's hear list > > discussion first. > > > > -- Jeff
