Return-Path: X-Original-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C5FFC14F5EC; Wed, 5 Jun 2024 08:50:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.746 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.746 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com 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 v5gRjjIBZ0mu; Wed, 5 Jun 2024 08:50:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pl1-x634.google.com (mail-pl1-x634.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::634]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 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 72731C14F5E3; Wed, 5 Jun 2024 08:50:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pl1-x634.google.com with SMTP id d9443c01a7336-1f47f07aceaso104525ad.0; Wed, 05 Jun 2024 08:50:26 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1717602626; x=1718207426; darn=ietf.org; h=references:to:cc:in-reply-to:date:subject:mime-version:message-id :from:sender:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=dkwnsekwVfDHpuUEx0H0n+v0MF7xNNvONiIjK4aL6Ys=; b=HqnemrUc30LQYe13ahI16fdp97q4x4aKasiE2r+L3EoNyBcgkf8Wiz4dp+Em6YPJEg JmvTdLMWPRBdlRHNiGfeFX1e3LMFy9D4rjFFqrzSU/PJRw1wnjPVkX1pfDlzqURlhQMY JX2UwGltwM0Y8iPan6TZirNLbdbvtiqAXtLWngacPFo3UxtK75HlesQnSlTzfosodNHb OQI+eFcDpYHYOMRjtb0ipCLS71HFotq4ETnQk3oQ2Mt4e4A9MefwRXMIxGQ/FjCAMN2v 8Bxnhg/+3k4wikV1Nb48GbJkbKaPJmFBlhkdEkznqAqVXMfrpuplSG+Tkvoa6M7Rb2YA 9DlQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1717602626; x=1718207426; h=references:to:cc:in-reply-to:date:subject:mime-version:message-id :from:sender:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=dkwnsekwVfDHpuUEx0H0n+v0MF7xNNvONiIjK4aL6Ys=; b=VDfe3P59Pni5ZkffgH3LNc3ayMeo0rxfHQn0rHT3Df9p9Takzrj4oiFIU+/xnDA3Ll d733WtYodpqLbT5uvIETC4bnbmhQr6zD0lvecoh3le91mv7LalVfNWij6uI5pTfU2rIU hi3JHwNG63EdPtxebjIdOoPl2PDouaNTMsUJBMeg7ogGrUWGsGNtnubX5pjkWhIvvUZl hkzrt7pNQ5szGUxPD4s0kOFM2VrtXdiR6t58rXj7thg0l+c/vx/URJhoBd/shYPfNjEY aGgWy8aLwhMM4KvAmVQFpAczyda3t92hm6tLTi62u8EkeF8vedCIIGEXk84D/Jx0v/i4 JGxw== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCUIh0U5DdJzCAViNex2VQ1J9ZBEBtAr5vJh3HDm1yV+CKVQWj91a4lGdzPAxxNLaYiuZ25o08FLoZXca8huG764DoY9YLAJXsRJDXkTKG2VZWS9f9qmdFzGSZLHmqSvxMfx8dWjxybFUc2FWB6nb/5hTih+oTo= X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YyrMPpGWWDxyoOgoX+qjB0SmKoYT1jiAurihCgcryYhOdLc4Pns bZ0bGQBe+Dc1VJpmt32bX8SkGmdk1xbqTfOJgdlFKH4Mcv1mkgb9cveKQQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IGAK0IA3Uvmcbd/0qWE2xToyQNdCmCTVv9KM36Mh1Odbu4rLg8n4iTjc/EEhbop3H2ge+bb/A== X-Received: by 2002:a17:903:1c9:b0:1f4:5fe5:74d1 with SMTP id d9443c01a7336-1f6a5a0deb8mr36286175ad.18.1717602620544; Wed, 05 Jun 2024 08:50:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtpclient.apple (c-73-93-167-4.hsd1.ca.comcast.net. [73.93.167.4]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d9443c01a7336-1f632338be8sm103610995ad.44.2024.06.05.08.50.19 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 05 Jun 2024 08:50:20 -0700 (PDT) Sender: Tony Li From: Tony Li Message-Id: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_C1D18905-2093-445A-AD88-38B3FAE8C060" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3774.600.62\)) Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2024 08:50:09 -0700 In-Reply-To: To: Stewart Bryant References: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3774.600.62) Message-ID-Hash: ELMFAO6C7S66OOAZMF7WXUR6UBK7SMQT X-Message-ID-Hash: ELMFAO6C7S66OOAZMF7WXUR6UBK7SMQT X-MailFrom: tony1athome@gmail.com X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-mpls.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header CC: mpls , mpls-chairs , "draft-ietf-mpls-mna-hdr@ietf.org" X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc4 Precedence: list Subject: =?utf-8?q?=5Bmpls=5D_Re=3A_Working_Group_Last_Call_on_draft-ietf-mpls-mna-hd?= =?utf-8?q?r?= List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG Archived-At: List-Archive: List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: --Apple-Mail=_C1D18905-2093-445A-AD88-38B3FAE8C060 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 [WG chair hat: off] Hi Stewart, Unfortunately, there are IPR claims on the technology. However, in this = case, I disagree and think that we should proceed with this solution. For reasons that I=E2=80=99m not supposed to discuss, I believe that = this is entirely consistent. Regards, Tony > On Jun 5, 2024, at 8:30=E2=80=AFAM, Stewart Bryant = wrote: >=20 > Without prejudice to the technology itself which I will review = shortly. >=20 > The WG rejected another technology because it was encumbered with IPR.=20= >=20 > = https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/tMJybst_lhIx43M3_ic9e9x3_fI/ >=20 > For example Tony Li, now an MPLS WG Chair, says: >=20 > "I do NOT support adopting this as a working group document. >=20 > "I find that the terms of the IPR disclosure are overly restrictive = and would prefer that we selected a different technology for this = problem.=E2=80=9D >=20 > As far as I can see from the IPR disclosures, this technology is = encumbered with similar IPR terms and is thus also overly restricted. >=20 > For consistency It would appear that we should also reject = draft-ietf-mpls-mna-hdr on the grounds of restricted IPR. >=20 > I therefore propose that draft-ietf-mpls-mna-hdr is rejected as a = solution. >=20 > Best regards >=20 > Stewart >=20 >=20 >=20 >> On 4 Jun 2024, at 03:50, Tarek Saad wrote: >>=20 >> Dear WG, >> This email starts a two-week Working Group last call for = draft-ietf-mpls-mna-hdr = . >> Please indicate your support or concern for this draft. If you are = opposed to the progression of the draft to RFC, please articulate your = concern. If you support it, please indicate that you have read the = latest version, and it is ready for publication in your opinion. As = always, review comments and nits are most welcome. >> Please send your comments to the mpls WG mailing list (mpls@ietf.org = ). >> If necessary, comments may be sent unidirectional to the WG chairs. >> =20 >> Note, currently there are 5 IPR disclosures against this document at = https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?submit=3Ddraft&id=3Ddraft-ietf-mp= ls-mna-hdr >> =20 >> This poll runs until June 18, 2024. >> Thank you, >> Tarek (for the MPLS WG co-chairs) >> _______________________________________________ >> mpls mailing list -- mpls@ietf.org >> To unsubscribe send an email to mpls-leave@ietf.org = --Apple-Mail=_C1D18905-2093-445A-AD88-38B3FAE8C060 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8

[WG chair hat: = off]

Hi = Stewart,

Unfortunately, there are IPR claims on = the technology. However, in this case, I disagree and think that we = should proceed with this solution.
For reasons that I=E2=80=99m = not supposed to discuss, I believe that this is entirely = consistent.

Regards,
Tony

On Jun 5, 2024, at = 8:30=E2=80=AFAM, Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com> = wrote:

Without prejudice to the = technology itself which I will review = shortly.

The WG rejected another = technology because it was encumbered with = IPR. 

https://mailar= chive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/tMJybst_lhIx43M3_ic9e9x3_fI/

For example Tony Li, now an MPLS WG Chair, = says:

"I do NOT support adopting = this as a working group document.

"I find that the terms of the = IPR disclosure are overly restrictive and would prefer that we selected = a different technology for this = problem.=E2=80=9D

As far as I can see = from the IPR disclosures, this technology is encumbered with similar IPR = terms and is thus also overly = restricted.

For consistency It would = appear that we should also reject draft-ietf-mpls-mna-hdr on the grounds = of restricted IPR.

I = therefore propose that draft-ietf-mpls-mna-hdr is rejected = as a solution.

Best = regards

Stewart



On 4 Jun 2024, at 03:50, Tarek Saad = <tsaad.net@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear = WG,
This email starts a two-week Working Group last call for draft-ietf-mpls-mna-hdr.
Please indicate your support or concern for this draft. If you = are opposed to the progression of the draft to RFC, please articulate = your concern. If you support it, please indicate that you have read the = latest version, and it is ready for publication in your opinion. As = always, review comments and nits are most = welcome.
Please send your comments to the mpls WG mailing list (mpls@ietf.org).
If necessary, comments may = be sent unidirectional to the WG chairs.
 
Note, currently there are 5 IPR disclosures = against this document at https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?submit=3Ddraft&id= =3Ddraft-ietf-mpls-mna-hdr
 
This poll runs until June 18, = 2024.
Thank you,
Tarek (for the MPLS WG = co-chairs)
_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list -- mpls@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to mpls-leave@ietf.org


= --Apple-Mail=_C1D18905-2093-445A-AD88-38B3FAE8C060--