IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Detnet] adoption of draft-dt-detnet-dp-alt-03?

"Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Fri, 02 September 2016 15:00 UTC

Return-Path: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
X-Original-To: detnet@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: detnet@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D25812B035 for <detnet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Sep 2016 08:00:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.62
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.62 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Nc-WmIrvZVpt for <detnet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Sep 2016 08:00:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from asmtp5.iomartmail.com (asmtp5.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.176]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0B0F5128874 for <detnet@ietf.org>; Fri, 2 Sep 2016 08:00:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from asmtp5.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp5.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id u82F0jUs009317 for <detnet@ietf.org>; Fri, 2 Sep 2016 16:00:46 +0100
Received: from 950129200 ([79.141.128.249]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp5.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id u82F0jf7009309 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <detnet@ietf.org>; Fri, 2 Sep 2016 16:00:45 +0100
From: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: detnet@ietf.org
References: <CAJt_5EiCuq2uv5R96uhSMrXdDJTvq52iS0cz-uZ=mizFv+ad+w@mail.gmail.com> <2b68a777-c951-ee05-7d0f-8ade257d9972@labn.net>
In-Reply-To: <2b68a777-c951-ee05-7d0f-8ade257d9972@labn.net>
Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2016 16:00:46 +0100
Message-ID: <054901d2052a$c9a402a0$5cec07e0$@olddog.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQKTTcZ1/CQnxc/sTDI1LV6/j6GYiwHBJU7yntWuruA=
Content-Language: en-gb
X-TM-AS-MML: disable
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.1.0.1679-8.0.0.1202-22552.000
X-TM-AS-Result: No--25.447-10.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--25.447-10.0-31-10
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: WMT2WRIkHPOPIr9Wpu0YXClrosmS0SOA6GFB3Dq44xzSYAzZ6KmqWs3M E4JSKf6joQjjyuOCZOkom5mBFf669qoDZpNjSrDVjoyKzEmtrEeUXdJObLtsgkX5hc8ioB2++RS bLVjWMfyfE+GbR1ySGwk9gIyXId5KaQPHx3YbvOaepOo7UqIl+cDZw0nL+opSIBaUSuDVWU95L2 Bpc0g4FU1i8No7236c5iixWHCqb/3srfmvTLX/nm/CU2X9JBM7QhvApXvqnLEwp/4s3hUlGDcol L66pGxaZsr039V3lrUcXHGlMxAiNS/33TWoSUH6Qr2qXCJMSV9CdUZFvvy+kIqUnvVNf36DbjZD qA/zbpD3hMUSL9X4qq5WZLKKQEKeQ9tg+p38ZolmVHNo7XGknUDa4Ea2sU0BqPm/sjj9KBj06z+ XvHnOwbfqHaErmu92kZOl7WKIImq0P2qkGU0XysC4UUZr4lSF+gD2vYtOFhgqtq5d3cxkNQP90f JP9eHt
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet/V044N_5fOfd68LtrQ9HUtyA1nJ4>
Subject: Re: [Detnet] adoption of draft-dt-detnet-dp-alt-03?
X-BeenThere: detnet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
List-Id: Discussions on Deterministic Networking BoF and Proposed WG <detnet.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/detnet>, <mailto:detnet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/detnet/>
List-Post: <mailto:detnet@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:detnet-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet>, <mailto:detnet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2016 15:00:50 -0000

All,

I looked at the IPR and I see it is RAND (not the "we won't sue you if you don't
sue us" that is often used). I think that is a shame and an unfortunate way for
DetNet to start.

But perhaps we can kill two birds with one stone? If we remove all discussion of
BIER-TE (except perhaps an informative reference to some document that describes
BIER-TE) we will:
- avoid an IETF end-run defining technology that is not in scope
- allow the IPR holder to retract their disclosure

FWIW I think BIER-TE belongs in the BIER working group, but only after it has
been rechartered. And I think that rechartering is only likely to happen when
the WG has reached stability around the core BIER technology - but this is a
decision the ADs are likely to be able to clarify.

I agree with others that this is a good document (also agree that some edits
will be needed :-) and support it being adopted conditional on the removal of
normative text about BIER-TE.

Cheers,
Adrian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: detnet [mailto:detnet-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Lou Berger
> Sent: 02 September 2016 12:48
> To: Pat Thaler; detnet@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Detnet] adoption of draft-dt-detnet-dp-alt-03?
> 
> Sorry about being a day late on this.
> 
> For the record, I want to restate my view from [1] that this document is
> not the right place for *any* mechanism definition -- and that the
> BIER-TE definitions should be removed prior to the document being
> published as an RFC.
> 
> Lou
> 
> [1] https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/detnet/current/msg00693.html
> 
> On 8/19/2016 2:53 PM, Pat Thaler wrote:
> > All,
> >
> > This is start of a two-week poll on making
> > draft-dt-detnet-dp-alt-03 a working group document. Please
> > send email to the list indicating "yes/support" or "no/do not
> > support". If indicating no, please state your reservations with the
> > document.  If yes, please also feel free to provide comments you'd
> > like to see addressed once the document is a WG document.
> >
> > The poll ends April 1, 2016
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Pat Thaler
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > detnet mailing list
> > detnet@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> detnet mailing list
> detnet@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email