Re: [mpls] working group last call on draft-ietf-mpls-bfd-directed-02.txt

Ross Callon <> Fri, 11 March 2016 18:52 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C92012DA57; Fri, 11 Mar 2016 10:52:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.892
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.892 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qhVW7QG0bEpB; Fri, 11 Mar 2016 10:52:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 03DD112DA61; Fri, 11 Mar 2016 10:52:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.1.415.20; Fri, 11 Mar 2016 18:52:30 +0000
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.01.0415.024; Fri, 11 Mar 2016 18:52:30 +0000
From: Ross Callon <>
To: "" <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: [mpls] working group last call on draft-ietf-mpls-bfd-directed-02.txt
Thread-Index: AQHRe7xOxEIb7Ly+F0uGTe3cZYgYXZ9UlHog
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2016 18:52:30 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <064501d17bbc$49f36110$ddda2330$>
In-Reply-To: <064501d17bbc$49f36110$ddda2330$>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
authentication-results:; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;; dmarc=none action=none;
x-originating-ip: []
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; DM2PR05MB573; 5:21AW3bWFazVIxtRtFCeBRiaipe4sL3yYmQSDitfceKwusu+OFEMBIIA4x+Ej8RWX0RFpB9pUXgjl0V81GUxHZwgqvM3n2nmG855paxJVEKsHfj4s5+rSBUQlZvnpq4VrkT4KJEauHJJtggsmOdy7gw==; 24:CE5DyYWcCiOxBP+asNYE7OxNg+aFBLeQxZbfsdOadJK2epV+jZ0nmtxoBYqD/HeG/6XyTXyB9e8ChGesuPiqy9Vm9+Lq9ijvlQsNWveJqwQ=
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:DM2PR05MB573;
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 1ff1de9c-2d52-4944-5e20-08d349de4ca1
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:;
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(601004)(2401047)(5005006)(8121501046)(10201501046)(3002001); SRVR:DM2PR05MB573; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:DM2PR05MB573;
x-forefront-prvs: 087894CD3C
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(377454003)(164054003)(586003)(106116001)(74316001)(33656002)(76576001)(19580405001)(19580395003)(122556002)(86362001)(5008740100001)(16236675004)(81166005)(11100500001)(1220700001)(3660700001)(230783001)(87936001)(5002640100001)(19609705001)(10400500002)(92566002)(2900100001)(77096005)(99286002)(5001770100001)(18717965001)(2950100001)(19300405004)(189998001)(54356999)(4326007)(1096002)(66066001)(19617315012)(76176999)(3280700002)(2906002)(3846002)(5004730100002)(790700001)(2501003)(50986999)(15975445007)(5003600100002)(19625215002)(6116002)(102836003); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:DM2PR05MB573;; FPR:; SPF:None; MLV:sfv; LANG:en;
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:23
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_DM2PR05MB573E050599CABADD6407409A5B50DM2PR05MB573namprd_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 11 Mar 2016 18:52:30.5176 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: bea78b3c-4cdb-4130-854a-1d193232e5f4
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DM2PR05MB573
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [mpls] working group last call on draft-ietf-mpls-bfd-directed-02.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2016 18:52:52 -0000

> I think it is important for the working group to seek to develop solutions that either completely
> unencumbered by IPR or that is available on free-to-implementers terms.

My understanding of the process (which I really *should* know by now, but I am sure someone
will correct me if I get this wrong):

- As a working group, we get to decide by rough consensus of the working group whether or not
we are willing to progress a document, based on whatever criteria we want including whether or
not the technology is available on "free-to-implement terms".

- As a working group, we DO NOT get to decide whether or not any particular IPR is valid and we
should not be making any statements about this (and I note that Adrian did not make any statement
about validity).

Thanks, Ross (as WG co-chair)

From: Adrian Farrel []
Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016 12:35 PM
To: Ross Callon;
Subject: RE: [mpls] working group last call on draft-ietf-mpls-bfd-directed-02.txt

Ross, thanks for this notice.

I need to read the IPR referenced by the disclosure, but pending that, I do not support this document going forward in its current state.

I think it is important for the working group to seek to develop solutions that either completely unencumbered by IPR or that is available on free-to-implementers terms. It may turn out that this is not possible with the disclosed IPR, but I think the WG should try.

For the avoidance of doubt: I am not making any comment on the IPR-holder's rights to impose whatever license they want, and I am not asking them to vary their terms.

I do not that it would be convenient if the IPR holder updated the disclosure to show that it applies to the current WG draft.


From: mpls [] On Behalf Of Ross Callon
Sent: 11 March 2016 17:13
Subject: [mpls] working group last call on draft-ietf-mpls-bfd-directed-02.txt

Working Group,

This is to initiate a two week working group last call on draft-ietf-mpls-bfd-directed-02.txt.

Please send your comments to the mpls wg mailing list (<>).

There is one IPR disclosure on draft-mirsky-mpls-bfd-directed
(which was the pre-working group version of draft-ietf-mpls-bfd-directed):
All the authors have stated that they are not aware of any other IPR that relates to this

This working group last call will end at the end of the day Friday March 25, 2016.

As with any WGLC, working group participants are requested to read the document
and comment. If you feel that the document is ready for publication it is appropriate to
respond to any WGLC with a short and simple email indicating support.

for the MPLS WG chairs