Re: [I2nsf] need more review and support to close the WGLC for draft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm

[tom petch <[e-mail]>]

On 12/07/2022 18:44, Linda Dunbar wrote:
> Sue,
>
> Thank you very much for the offer.
>
> The unsolved comments are from Tom Petch: Re: [I2nsf] WGLC for draft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm-16<https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/i2nsf/d_Wk5fH35Jo_cdz4D0QZN5VNhFA/>
> There are several responses to address Tom Petch's comments. Just Tom hasn't sent feedback if he is satisfied with the response.

Linda,

I am sorry I have not got back to you; I did not realise that I was 
holding things up.  Meanwhile, another problem has arise.  Most of the 
activity on the WG mailing list recently has been ten IPR claims, one of 
which is against this I-D, for an unpublished patent, with possible 
Royalty/Fee.

Similar claims were made three years ago, before I was involved, and the 
WG pushed back on this, that the usual reciprocity clause would be ok, 
possible Royalty/Fee would not be.  Were those who pushed back three 
years ago to see the latest claims, I would expect them to push back 
again.  To see the terms of these latest claims I find disappointing.

I do not understand the details of the IPR claims; I am used to a claim 
being made against each successive version of an I-D up to an including 
the RFC.  Here, some at least of the claims would appear to relate to 
earlier versions and not the current one but since much of the text is 
in common, the choice of version seems irrelevant.  Also, some of the 
claims specify the relevant sections and one would appear to include the 
IANA Considerations which seems unusual while some of the claims are in 
CJK script which I do not read.

I realise that the IETF takes no position on IPR claims, that the WG 
members have to decide whether or not to proceed with the work in the 
presence of a claim.  On one such previous occasion, the WG was 
satisfied that there was prior art which would invalidate the claim and 
so the work went ahead regardless of the claim; such a step is not 
possible with an unpublished patent.

July is a hectic time for me so I shall look at the revised I-Ds but not 
just yet.  Whether or not I want to participate in the presence of the 
IPR claims, I am unsure.

Tom Petch

>
> Linda
>
> From: Susan Hares <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2022 12:21 PM
> To: Linda Dunbar <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> Subject: RE: [I2nsf] need more review and support to close the WGLC for draft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm
>
> Linda:
>
> I will review the document by  Thursday (7/14) and send in a review of the document.   Would you let me know what WG LC comments were not addressed?
>
> Cheers, Sue
>
> From: I2nsf <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> On Behalf Of Linda Dunbar
> Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2022 1:17 PM
> To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
> Subject: [I2nsf] need more review and support to close the WGLC for draft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm
>
>
> I2NF WG,
>
> draft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm WGLC was inconclusive due to lack of support and some LC comments not properly addressed. There appeared to be limited reviews of the document during the WGLC
> See the discussion history: [I2nsf] WGLC for draft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm-16<https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmailarchive.ietf.org%2Farch%2Fmsg%2Fi2nsf%2FMFOohjnJ9fbylLB9eyccMRhrp04%2F&data=05%7C01%7Clinda.dunbar%40futurewei.com%7Cc95feb0ac382419474b808da642adfd0%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C637932432560667469%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=f9Jlz0HgQw7NO%2BKer356WyaN9toprO8WCPEUBGhkAXI%3D&reserved=0>
>
> To proceed to publication more reviews and support from the WG for publication is needed.
> We really appreciate more people reviewing the document, especially the people who are not the authors.
>
> Thank you
> Linda Dunbar
>