[bess] Re: [Idr] Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-bess-ebgp-dmz

[Jeffrey Haas <[e-mail]>]

Tiger,

Some of these questions are impacting progression of the DMZ draft.  Would
you please respond:

On Wed, May 06, 2026 at 10:02:01AM -0400, Jeffrey Haas wrote:
> [Speaking as an IDR chair and the shepherd for the DMZ document in this response]
> 
> > Fourth, the new use cases and associated technical approaches introduced in draft-ietf-bess-ebgp-dmz -07 (published 20 July 2025) were already fully and explicitly documented in draft-xu-idr-fare -00 (released 1 July 2024).
> 
> There are certainly overlaps in the problem space between the DMZ and FARE documents. draft-xu-idr-fare-00 was issued on January 2025.  The DMZ draft had been getting work done on it over several years with refining use cases.  Is there a specific use case you are referring to here?  If so, please clarify what section in the document you're discussing.
> 
> Also, is there a concern that there is work covered in that overlapping portion of the documents that have undisclosed IPR considerations?  Or, is this more a matter that the DMZ document appropriated a use case without attribution to its contributors?

The above impacts both attribution and IPR.

> > Further detailed analysis is presented below. IMHO, the IETF, as a leading global standards-setting body, ought not to endorse or tolerate such non-compliant community practices. Allowing such precedent would undermine the IETF’s reputation for impartiality and erode its ecosystem of original technical innovation.
> 
> I'll address the technical points below, but what "non-compliant community practices" are you referring to?  Please be explicit.

Would you clarify what non-compliant practices you're discussing?

> > 2. Issues and solutions introduced in version -08
> > Version -08 adds:
> > “In addition, as illustrated in the previous sections, BGP may have to consider a combination of the local link and remote bandwidth when computing the weights for weighted load‑balancing. Any function of the two may be used like for instance a ‘minimum’ function … The weight of each path may then be based on either: only the remote bandwidth, only the local link bandwidth, or a function of both.”
> > This introduces the minimum function (choosing the smaller value between the link bandwidth and the path bandwidth of the received route). The draft also acknowledges for the first time the necessity of path bandwidth:
> > “In our example, the value 30Gbps advertised by R3 represents an aggregated path bandwidth.”
> > Again, both the minimum function and the concept of path bandwidth were already described in draft-xu-idr-fare version -00.
> 
> For this point, I'll ask that the DMZ authors respond to the provenance of the use case.  I'd also suggest to the BESS chairs and AD to halt progression of the document until that point is settled.  Minimally, if there's an issue of attribution, that should be addressed.
> 
> Further, I ask again on this point where there is undisclosed IPR that you consider an issue for this use case?

Would you clarify if there's undisclosed IPR considerations?

-- Jeff