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

[Christopher Morrow <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 3:49 AM, Paul Francis <[e-mail]> 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 <[e-mail]>
> To:     [e-mail]
> Cc:     [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
> [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
> [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]
> 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 <[e-mail]>
> 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
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>