Re: WG adoption poll on draft-nitish-vrrp-bfd-04

[Greg Mirsky]

Dear All,
to the best of my knowledge and understanding the disclosed IPR may be
relevant only to Section 4.

Regards,
Greg

On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 7:20 AM, Adrian Farrel <adr...@olddog.co.uk> wrote:

> 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 adop

RE: WG adoption poll on draft-nitish-vrrp-bfd-04

[Adrian Farrel]

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

RE: WG adoption poll on draft-nitish-vrrp-bfd-04

[Chris Bowers]

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' ; 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 
(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/

This adoption poll will end on Friday October 14th.

Thanks,
Chris and Jeff

RE: WG adoption poll on draft-nitish-vrrp-bfd-04

[Vengada Prasad Govindan (venggovi)]

Have read the draft and think it is useful in addressing a valid use case. 
Hence I support its adoption.
Thanks
Prasad

From: Rtg-bfd [mailto:rtg-bfd-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Chris Bowers
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2016 9:14 PM
To: 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 
(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/

This adoption poll will end on Friday October 14th.

Thanks,
Chris and Jeff

Re: WG adoption poll on draft-nitish-vrrp-bfd-04

[Jeff Tantsura]

Support as co-author 

 

Cheers,

Jeff

 

On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 9:14 PM, Chris Bowers  wrote:

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 (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/

 

This adoption poll will end on Friday October 14th.

 

Thanks,

Chris and Jeff

 

 

 

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

 


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

 

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

Re: WG adoption poll on draft-nitish-vrrp-bfd-04

[Greg Mirsky]

Yes/support as co-author

Regards, Greg

On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 11:00 PM, Pushpasis Sarkar  wrote:

> Support.
>
> Thanks
> -Pushpasis
>
> On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 9:14 PM, Chris Bowers  wrote:
>
>> 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 (*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/*
>> 
>>
>> This adoption poll will end on Friday October 14th.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Chris and Jeff
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> rtgwg mailing list
>> rt...@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
>>
>>
>
> ___
> rtgwg mailing list
> rt...@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
>
>

Re: WG adoption poll on draft-nitish-vrrp-bfd-04

[Pushpasis Sarkar]

Support.

Thanks
-Pushpasis

On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 9:14 PM, Chris Bowers  wrote:

> 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 (*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/*
> 
>
> This adoption poll will end on Friday October 14th.
>
> Thanks,
> Chris and Jeff
>
>
>
> ___
> rtgwg mailing list
> rt...@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
>
>

Re: WG adoption poll on draft-nitish-vrrp-bfd-04

[Acee Lindem (acee)]

While I originally didn’t think this was necessary, I can see the use case and 
support RTG WG adoption.
Thanks,
Acee

From: rtgwg > on behalf 
of Chris Bowers >
Date: Thursday, September 29, 2016 at 11:44 AM
To: Routing WG >, 
"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 
(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/

This adoption poll will end on Friday October 14th.

Thanks,
Chris and Jeff

Re: WG adoption poll on draft-nitish-vrrp-bfd-04

[Loa Andersson]

Folks,

When the mpls wg last called draft-ietf-mpls-bfd-directed we received
the following comment related the IPRs disclosed for this document:

  "Ross, thanks for this notice.
   I need to read the IPR referenced by the disclosure, but pending
   that, I do not support this document going forward in its current
   state.

   I think it is important for the working group to seek to develop
   solutions that either completely unencumbered by IPR or that is
   available on free-to-implementers terms. It may turn out that this
   is not possible with the disclosed IPR, but I think the WG should
   try.

   For the avoidance of doubt: I am not making any comment on the
   IPR-holder's rights to impose whatever license they want, and I am
   not asking them to vary their terms.

   I do note that it would be convenient if the IPR holder updated the
   disclosure to show that it applies to the current WG draft.

   Thanks,

   Adrian"

The document has since then been blocked by failure to reach a
consensus on the IPR. In the mean time there has also been new
technical comments that the authors tried to address.

The Patent application referred to in the disclosure is:

Appl no: US Serial No.: 14/512,259
Appl date: October 13, 2014

Later updated to:
Patent, Serial, Publication, Registration, or Application/File number(s)
US Serial No: 14/846580, filed Sept 4, 2015

This document has a very similar (not to say identical) IPR disclosure
referencing:

Appl.No: US Serial No: 14/512.259
Appl.date: October 13, 2014

(for some reason this has not been updated.

I note the same thing as Adrian, it would be convenient if the IPR
holder updated the disclosure to show that it applies to the current
WG draft(s).

For the time being and for the very same reason that apply to the mpls
wg document I do not support this document being adopted as a wg doc,
unless it is clearly stated that the goal is to create a standard that
is that the working group to seek to develop a solution that either is
completely unencumbered by IPR or that is available on free-to-
implement terms.

/Loa



On 29/09/2016 23:44, Chris Bowers wrote:

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 (_rtgwg@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/_

This adoption poll will end on Friday October 14^th .

Thanks,
Chris and Jeff




--


Loa Anderssonemail: l...@mail01.huawei.com
Senior MPLS Expert  l...@pi.nu
Huawei Technologies (consultant) phone: +46 739 81 21 64