Re: Late IPR Disclosure regarding draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-alt-mark

Much as I love having my RFCs cited, I agree that this reference to RFC8799 isn't quite appropriate. Of course any controlled domain is an example for RFC8799, but RFC8799 is a commentary rather than a specification.

Regards
    Brian

On 01-Jul-22 06:08, Giuseppe Fioccola wrote:
> Hi Fernando,
> Regarding your observation about the abstract, I just added that sentence in the last revision.
> Since it was suggested in an IESG review to only highlight the controlled domain requirement, I have no problem to omit the reference to RFC 8799 and keep the rest of the sentence in the abstract of the next version.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Giuseppe
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ipv6 <ipv6-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Fernando Gont
> Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2022 7:07 PM
> To: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>; IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: Late IPR Disclosure regarding draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-alt-mark
> 
> Hello, Bob,
> 
> I, for one, support returning the document to the wg for the work to be reconsidered. Otherwise it would seem to me we'd be implicitly encouraging late disclosures.
> 
> P.S.: Aside and orthogonal from my opinion above, I find it curious that the abstract of the document states "According to RFC 8799, the IPv6 application of the Alternate Marking Method can be deployed in a controlled environment", particularly when RFC8799 (as much as I may like and agree with it) does not represent IETF consensus.
> 
> Thanks,
> Fernando
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 30/6/22 13:45, Bob Hinden wrote:
>> It has come to our attention that an IRP disclosure was made on draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-alt-mark after the 6MAN w.g. working group and IETF last call ended. The history is:
>>
>> 6MAN W.G. Last call Started 20-Dec-2020 6MAN W.G. Last call Ended
>> 7-Mar-2021 IETF Last Call started 1-Jun-2021 IETF Last Call Ended
>> 15-Jun-2021 IPR Disclosure on 26-Nov-2021
>> (https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/5320/)
>>
>> We find it troublesome that this IPR disclosure was submitted so late, especially since one of the listed inventors is also an author of this draft.
>>
>> Consequently, we are starting a two week w.g. last call to determine if there is still a w.g. consensus to advance this document. Please respond to the list if you still support the advancement of this document to the IESG for Proposed Standard, or if you think it should be returned to the w.g. to be reconsidered.
>>
>> The last call will end on 14 July 2022.
>>
>> Bob, Jen
>>
>>
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>> ipv6@ietf.org
>> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> --
> Fernando Gont
> e-mail: fernando@gont.com.ar
> PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------