Re: [GROW] IPR Disclosure: Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd's Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-grow-va-02

Christopher Morrow <christopher.morrow@gmail.com> Thu, 24 June 2010 15:41 UTC

Return-Path: <christopher.morrow@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: grow@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: grow@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B1693A69DE for <grow@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Jun 2010 08:41:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.979
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.979 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.620, BAYES_00=-2.599, SARE_LWSHORTT=1.24]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Zbjp0oGeJ0v8 for <grow@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Jun 2010 08:41:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-iw0-f172.google.com (mail-iw0-f172.google.com [209.85.214.172]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FAB43A69C3 for <grow@ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Jun 2010 08:41:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by iwn37 with SMTP id 37so56925iwn.31 for <grow@ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Jun 2010 08:41:56 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:in-reply-to :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=nA5YKhT4IHkKrFpH5q/d0FFnfDQm+TkS9eu1cCGWFSg=; b=hk5/RMnR/aAZk8emsimNheETowWdhqB69SBYI9mt1SD8BpU2IqnLIGmg9L+4gL3/iX m8C8zCyvQAalaXY4eS2zpMvdxS8zmnYWm8GyRYqUGZtD8hvGmKg5s+srqKxCIyoGHAHg JKqzCSghbKblGL3usVZBBn7Wlh39M178YjPQg=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=j21zuO/+lhMoDqJV1bD72GA5f5ug1AgFdBc9W5m3cPEt9Up6oqIndeHms59h1swrwU Qg+vimB1sTKsGUPGSZj7n2yxnRqbU2jcNadUtdMrLwvs2AuL4/AERka7275lxHvy/RIq noylU0RHxR5SluTTGgoE2TvdQ9KgmJwAb/v0Q=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.42.7.129 with SMTP id e1mr3607451ice.13.1277394115825; Thu, 24 Jun 2010 08:41:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.231.171.148 with HTTP; Thu, 24 Jun 2010 08:41:55 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4C237A8F.5020705@joelhalpern.com>
References: <20100623193156.A78563A6B07@core3.amsl.com> <AANLkTimfIFcDUScuCKCYQBBkcu-WIYLVupruIM7TAPWK@mail.gmail.com> <OFD3C5ACA1.C7FC2E4B-ONC125774C.0027E684-C125774C.002B01E7@notes.mpi-sb.mpg.de> <AANLkTimu3UA76zGXu81kd_0uLW32gp8BMThYo7yGm4dU@mail.gmail.com> <4C237A8F.5020705@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2010 11:41:55 -0400
Message-ID: <AANLkTim0xsZxtxClLQzIusGT285cBsOkjBWi4sFaXI9p@mail.gmail.com>
From: Christopher Morrow <christopher.morrow@gmail.com>
To: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>, Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: grow@ietf.org, dromasca@avaya.com
Subject: Re: [GROW] IPR Disclosure: Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd's Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-grow-va-02
X-BeenThere: grow@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Grow Working Group Mailing List <grow.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow>, <mailto:grow-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/grow>
List-Post: <mailto:grow@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:grow-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow>, <mailto:grow-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2010 15:41:49 -0000

On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 11:32 AM, Joel M. Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com> wrote:
> While autoconfig is not "necessary" in order to have a working VA system, I
> think it (some form of autoconfig) is necessary in order to have a

some form of config management relative to VA, sure. I'm not sure that
some overlying protocol is called for, for the 12 routers out of 1200
that need this, in a hypothetical network. Just understanding: "route
to the left on these devices only" seems fine.

> deployable and operable VA system.  Given that GROW is supposed to be
> focussed on operability, I am not at all sure we should drop autoconfig.

that's fair, in the end I have no strong feeling about it. I was
proposing to skip it if we don't feel it's on the critical path.

> {For context, the many concern I heard expressed at the early grow
> presentations was concern that the complexity of configuration made the
> system error prone and sufficient expensive, in terms of operational cost,
> that it woudl cost more than it would save.)

sure, and as stated in meetings (and on-list I believe) VA, to me,
seems like a short term solution when there are no alternatives
available to an operator for upgrades. There are lots of folks that do
'va' today *(by hand and in a very gross fashion) for this very
reason. For example, one could look at the bgp customer config at
cogent as a form of VA...

(w/regular-person-hat)
-chris

>
> Yours,
> Joel
>
> Christopher Morrow wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 3:49 AM, Paul Francis <francis@mpi-sws.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> As it was, I was about to ask the list if folks thought VA could move
>>> towards an informational RFC, or if folks felt that more implementation
>>> experience were needed.  Currently we have a linux/quagga implementation
>>> that does not include MPLS tunneling.  I'm not sure the status of the
>>> Huawei implementation, but it is not to the point where it can be tested
>>> against the linux implementation.  In any event, VA doesn't require
>>> wire-protocol changes, and I can well imagine that only once folks start
>>> trying to deploy it will we really learn what configurations work best
>>> (at
>>> which point we can document that).  In other words, even if we did have a
>>> couple working implementations, there would be much more to learn from
>>> real deployments.
>>>
>>> I wasn't aware of the IPR.  According to the statement, it covers
>>> technology in draft-ietf-grow-va-auto-01.  This covers a way to simplify
>>> configuration of the so-called VP-list.  This approach is not mentioned
>>> in
>>> either of the main drafts (draft-ietf-grow-va-02 or
>>> draft-ietf-grow-simple-va-00).  My personal feeling is that this approach
>>> is not very critical to the operation of VA, but lacking experience I
>>> could certainly be wrong.  In fact, if you look at the 00 draft of
>>> auto-config, you'll see that there was a second method proposed for
>>> auto-config which has pros and cons relative to Huawei's approach.  This
>>> was dropped from the 01 version primarily so as to keep things simple...I
>>> don't think any of the non-Huawei authors felt strongly about these
>>> approaches one way or the other.
>>>
>>> Bottom line, I don't think this IPR should impinge moving the two main
>>> drafts forward---first because it is optional, and second because there
>>> are alternatives.  There are a couple ways we could move forward:
>>>
>>> 1.  Stick with the set of drafts we have now (the two main drafts, and
>>> the
>>> optional auto-config draft with the IPR).
>>> 2.  Revive the second auto-config method so as to have a published
>>> non-encumbered option (probably as a separate draft so that it is clear
>>> what is and is not encumbered).
>>> 3.  Drop the auto-config draft, and continue forward with only the two
>>> main drafts.
>>
>> my feeling is if the autoconfig isn't necessary, and is encumbered how
>> about we live without it if possible :)
>> (w/participant hat)
>> -Chris
>>
>>> Thoughts?
>>>
>>> PF
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> From:   Christopher Morrow <christopher.morrow@gmail.com>
>>> To:     grow@ietf.org
>>> Cc:     lixia@cs.ucla.edu, raszuk@cisco.com, xuxh@huawei.com,
>>> jenster@cs.ucla.edu, hitesh@cs.cornell.edu, francis@mpi-sws.org,
>>> dromasca@avaya.com, rbonica@juniper.net, pds@lugs.com
>>> Date:   06/23/2010 09:46 PM
>>> Subject:        Re: IPR Disclosure: Huawei Technologies Co.,Ltd's
>>> Statement about IPR     related to draft-ietf-grow-va-02
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Grow-folk,
>>> we should probably decide whether this is a blocking issue for VA
>>> progression or not... I believe the ietf stance is that IPR claims are
>>> fine, if there aren't other non-encumbered options available.
>>>
>>> -Chris
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 3:31 PM, IETF Secretariat <ietf-ipr@ietf.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Dear Lixia Zhang, Robert Raszuk, Xiaohu Xu, Dan Jen, Hitesh Ballani,
>>>
>>> Paul Francis:
>>>>
>>>> An IPR disclosure that pertains to your Internet-Draft entitled "FIB
>>>
>>> Suppression
>>>>
>>>> with Virtual Aggregation" (draft-ietf-grow-va) was submitted to the IETF
>>>> Secretariat on 2010-06-23 and has been posted on the "IETF Page of
>>>
>>> Intellectual
>>>>
>>>> Property Rights Disclosures" (https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1341/).
>>>
>>> The title
>>>>
>>>> of the IPR disclosure is "Huawei Technologies Co.,Ltd's Statement about
>>>
>>> IPR
>>>>
>>>> related to draft-ietf-grow-va-02."
>>>>
>>>> The IETF Secretariat
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> GROW mailing list
>> GROW@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
>>
>