Re: [icnrg] CCNx Drafts - next steps

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

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?

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
>