Re: [icnrg] CCNx Drafts - next steps

["David R. Oran" <[e-mail]>]

___________________________
iDevice - please excuse typos.

> On Apr 7, 2015, at 7:40 AM, Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi Dave,
> 
>> On 06/04/15 17:55, David IMAP Mailstore wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Apr 6, 2015, at 9:49 AM, <[e-mail]>
>>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> For those that missed the ICNRG meeting in Dallas, we voted to
>>> adopt the CCNx protocol drafts as ICNRG drafts.
>> No, we did not. We don't vote. We took the sense of the room, which
>> was to adopt the drafts as RG Drafts, as opposed to individual
>> contributions.
>> 
>> Also, per IRTF procedures, no decisions are made definitively in
>> meetings. They are taken by a poll on the mailing list, which has not
>> yet occurred. I hope to get a message on this out to the list this
>> week.
>> 
>> Also, I any of these messages, please be sure people are pointed to
>> the IPR disclosure associated with them so peoe can assess what if
>> any problems that poses.
> 
> Is this [1] the (only) relevant IPR disclosure?
> 
It's the only one that's been filed.

> If so, and speaking purely as an individual: from a research
> point of view that's not a big deal. From the point of view
> of work emerging from the IRTF and potentially coming to the
> IETF, having work thusly encumbered would be a showstopper
> as far as I'm concerned if it arrived at the IETF's door
> with [1] attached. Of course, it's entirely possible that [1]
> would have been updated by then, but I consider it as a
> negative myself.
> 
> If the RG adopt these drafts and progress them as one amongst
> many, then I would not object. (But I can see why that might
> make the RG less productive too.) If the proposal were for the
> RG to decide that future work will be based around e.g. the
> packet format or one of the other drafts named by [1], then I
> would also not object, but I would thereafter consider that
> so long as [1] is the relevant IPR declaration, the output
> of the ICNRG is not at all likely to ever be useful input to
> the IETF.
> 
> And again, all of the above is my personal opinion only.
> 
> Thanks,
> S.
> 
> [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2560/
> 
>> 
>> Thanks (chair hat on) DaveO
>> 
>>> Please make sure that you take the time and read through the
>>> current set of drafts so you can provide feedback.
>>> 
>>> CCNx Semantics:
>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mosko-icnrg-ccnxsemantics-01 This
>>> draft describes the semantics of the CCNx protocol independently of
>>> encoding.
>>> 
>>> CCNx Packet Format:
>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mosko-icnrg-ccnxmessages-01 This
>>> draft  specifies a Type-Length-Value (TLV) packet format and the
>>> TLV type and value encodings for the CCNx network protocol as
>>> specified in th CCNx Semantics document.
>>> 
>>> For your reference, additional specifications have also been
>>> submitted: CCNx Labeled Content:
>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mosko-icnrg-ccnxlabeledcontent-00 
>>> CCNx Content Object Chunking:
>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mosko-icnrg-ccnxchunking-00 CCNx
>>> End-to-End Fragmentation:
>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mosko-icnrg-ccnxfragmentation-00 
>>> CCNx Serial Versioning:
>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mosko-icnrg-ccnxserialversion-00
>>> 
>>> We would like to get a new set of drafts out for the next ICNRG
>>> meeting, so keep this in mind if you want to send feedback or
>>> contribute. The cut-off date for drafts is 2015-07-06. We would
>>> like to have the updates ready at least a week before to schedule
>>> meeting time as needed.
>>> 
>>> Many thanks!
>>> 
>>> Laura ---- Laura Hill Manager, Documentation and Information
>>> Architecture Palo Alto Research Center (PARC) [phone] 
>>> [e-mail]
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________ icnrg mailing list 
>>> [e-mail] https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/icnrg
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________ icnrg mailing list 
>> [e-mail] https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/icnrg
>>