IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Assertion of an issue with previously undisclosed IPR involving YANG and maybe draft-ietf-core-problem-details (NOT)

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Sat, 25 June 2022 22:10 UTC

Return-Path: <cabo@tzi.org>
X-Original-To: ipr-wg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipr-wg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70231C15AE27 for <ipr-wg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 25 Jun 2022 15:10:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iXeq45xXWAxw for <ipr-wg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 25 Jun 2022 15:10:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gabriel-smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de (gabriel-smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de [134.102.50.15]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F3A2AC14F73B for <ipr-wg@ietf.org>; Sat, 25 Jun 2022 15:10:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.217.118] (p5089ad4f.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [80.137.173.79]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gabriel-smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4LVp892RfGzDCcG; Sun, 26 Jun 2022 00:10:17 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.7\))
Subject: Re: Assertion of an issue with previously undisclosed IPR involving YANG and maybe draft-ietf-core-problem-details (NOT)
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <811da515-7304-5305-bcd6-ba407b238785@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2022 00:10:16 +0200
Cc: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>, ipr-wg@ietf.org, tom petch <daedulus@btconnect.com>
X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 677887816.883926-edc0037f56764e6cc6c10309240a6bd0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <470AC7F3-D2D0-40D0-B442-7CEC58DFE242@tzi.org>
References: <47287450E84A302CE73DE36D@PSB> <811da515-7304-5305-bcd6-ba407b238785@gmail.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.7)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipr-wg/LscywtxgznAU4WA_1MDz_uroCBg>
X-BeenThere: ipr-wg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: IPR-WG <ipr-wg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipr-wg>, <mailto:ipr-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipr-wg/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipr-wg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipr-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg>, <mailto:ipr-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2022 22:10:27 -0000

On 2022-06-25, at 06:26, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> That said, further disclosures after the document is fully approved seem very strange, to say the least. It may be worth somebody involved glancing at RFC6701.

I don’t have an opinion about sanctions, but it should be possible to yank the document out of the RFC editor queue if information that is material to the approval was culpably withheld by the authors.

But I’m really responding because “draft-ietf-core-problem-details” is mentioned in the subject of the mail I’m responding to.

The only relation to the I2NSF draft is that both drafts happen to use BCP 47 language tags and both seem to be relatively advanced specimens of such usage in their respective FDT (formal description technique) domains (YANG for the I2NSF draft, CDDL for core-problem-details).  
The way the drafts use these FDTs is completely different.
(And it is unlikely that merely using language-tags is the subject of a patent claim in any case.)

So I don’t think this episode has any bearing on draft-ietf-core-problem-details.

Grüße, Carsten

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email