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