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

[Paul Francis <[e-mail]>]

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.

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
>
>
>