IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Int-dir] Intdir last call review of draft-ietf-ippm-alt-mark-10

"Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <cpignata@cisco.com> Wed, 20 September 2017 19:34 UTC

Return-Path: <cpignata@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: int-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: int-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9553134323; Wed, 20 Sep 2017 12:34:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.52
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.52 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bomNzxD4W9xm; Wed, 20 Sep 2017 12:34:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-3.cisco.com (alln-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.142.90]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 996F813430E; Wed, 20 Sep 2017 12:27:18 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=11546; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1505935638; x=1507145238; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=zY0u9E4OHC3XuL98vMBvFidCdWQpJ6bpTa8KJfz0wa0=; b=d+axQTmaMBXkfeSPA/QknYrj4wUgQx6QFKPjzbqT80XFfTxqRUfLhq9s ZM1rAl+Bzswj5hAQPsxI147xhGF1NAxCVDC8nfEpdhLMga2HTEGu/bYtY Z+9IVX5Ik/5KdYprUMp+Hc6rRrokBTIcUHTh1F8fAotHhGkLyH5Q/PDnv 4=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0CyAgA/wMJZ/5pdJa1cGQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBBwEBAQEBgy0tZG4nB4NumhaBUpEGBYdQCiWFFgIahEtXAQIBAQEBAQJrKIUZBiNPBxACAQYCPwMCAgIwFBECBA4FiU9kEIlXnWaCJ4p8AQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBGAWDK4ICgVGBZCsLgnKBPYFshGUvgjEFoRMCh1uBYosYghOQaIoDiwoCERkBgTgBV4ENdxVbAYUSgXd2AQGIEIEQAQEB
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.42,422,1500940800"; d="scan'208,217";a="6356438"
Received: from rcdn-core-3.cisco.com ([173.37.93.154]) by alln-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 20 Sep 2017 19:27:17 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-017.cisco.com (xch-rtp-017.cisco.com [64.101.220.157]) by rcdn-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v8KJRHeN010967 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 20 Sep 2017 19:27:17 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-020.cisco.com (64.101.220.160) by XCH-RTP-017.cisco.com (64.101.220.157) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1263.5; Wed, 20 Sep 2017 15:27:17 -0400
Received: from xch-rtp-020.cisco.com ([64.101.220.160]) by XCH-RTP-020.cisco.com ([64.101.220.160]) with mapi id 15.00.1263.000; Wed, 20 Sep 2017 15:27:17 -0400
From: "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <cpignata@cisco.com>
To: Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net>
CC: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>, Fioccola Giuseppe <giuseppe.fioccola@telecomitalia.it>, "int-dir@ietf.org" <int-dir@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-ippm-alt-mark.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ippm-alt-mark.all@ietf.org>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>, "ippm@ietf.org" <ippm@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Intdir last call review of draft-ietf-ippm-alt-mark-10
Thread-Index: AQHTMkRA7kKteyZT20u226jIRM5Gb6K+ad8AgAABkoA=
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2017 19:27:16 +0000
Message-ID: <70909BB4-7E74-482C-9267-C94EA79A4F86@cisco.com>
References: <150574562717.15655.17755871925264723529@ietfa.amsl.com> <25fa600863494417bf02e3f1416cb010@TELMBXB02RM001.telecomitalia.local> <f96ae0b7-ac01-37af-8323-e27bb80b3039@innovationslab.net> <b66beb1a2b9248c89e2b36ef49783d95@TELMBXB02RM001.telecomitalia.local> <CAKKJt-cvwOqwUEFSAV4sK82Oz+u0qRs88XUq1AH5ZhR7=aWQyg@mail.gmail.com> <84FCE76E-08EC-49C5-BEA1-E556B26D60F5@cisco.com> <060ba31b-6494-99b7-8f9d-ecf87e805993@innovationslab.net>
In-Reply-To: <060ba31b-6494-99b7-8f9d-ecf87e805993@innovationslab.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.118.116.133]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_70909BB47E74482C9267C94EA79A4F86ciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-dir/DFH8HB_2MvGcKO6-UxRGLOnHjiE>
Subject: Re: [Int-dir] Intdir last call review of draft-ietf-ippm-alt-mark-10
X-BeenThere: int-dir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "This list is for discussion between the members of the Internet Area directorate." <int-dir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/int-dir>, <mailto:int-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/int-dir/>
List-Post: <mailto:int-dir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:int-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-dir>, <mailto:int-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2017 19:34:25 -0000

Hi, Brian,

On Sep 20, 2017, at 3:21 PM, Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net<mailto:brian@innovationslab.net>> wrote:

Hi Carlos,

On 9/20/17 3:11 PM, Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) wrote:

* The shepherd writeup mentions IPR 2557 in relation to this draft. However, the IPR declaration is only associated with the original individual draft. The IPR declaration needs to be updated to refer to the WG draft.

[GF]: If needed we can renew the IPR declaration to refer to the WG draft.


It might not hurt, but at the same time, a question:

RFC 8179 S 5.4.2 talks about inheritance of IPR disclosures:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8179#section-5.4.2

     IPR
     disclosures against a particular Contribution are assumed to be
     inherited by revisions of the Contribution and by any RFCs that
     are published from the Contribution unless the disclosure has been
     updated or withdrawn.

It is not clear if a “revision” of an I-D as a contribution includes renaming it as WG document, merges, etc.

The data tracker tooling seems to be coded such that, if there is a Replaced_by relationship, the IPR declaration follows:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?submit=draft&id=draft-ietf-ippm-alt-mark
“Total number of IPR disclosures found: 1."

And contributors all acknowledged IPR 2557.

So the question:

* The shepherd writeup mentions IPR 2557 in relation to this draft. However, the IPR declaration is only associated with the original individual draft. The IPR declaration needs to be updated to refer to the WG draft.


Does it carry forward?

I think the answer is "sort of"...

If I look at the datatracker page for the WG, I do see 2557 listed
against the WG draft here:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/ippm/documents/

However, I do not see that declaration when looking at the HTML'ized
version of the draft here:

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ippm-alt-mark-10

Although it is listed against the document at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-alt-mark/
(See right underneath IANA a highlighted “1”)

And I’d assume the datatracker as a more authoritative rendering.


while I do see it listed against the original individual submission here:

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-tempia-ippm-p3m-03

The IPR search page does show the indirect disclosure based on the
individual submission.

So, it looks like an issue in the HTML rendering of the WG draft.


Thank you for checking. In any case, I appreciate your initial point and I believe being explicit and update the declaration is the way to go.

Thanks,

— Carlos.

Regards,
Brian

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email