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

David Allan I <> Fri, 18 March 2016 18:25 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 894A812D618; Fri, 18 Mar 2016 11:25:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.191
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.191 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-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 w04DyScaoqOb; Fri, 18 Mar 2016 11:25:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B762A12D774; Fri, 18 Mar 2016 11:25:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c6180641-f79fa6d0000057a9-95-56ec4801b4a2
Received: from (Unknown_Domain []) by (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id E6.BE.22441.1084CE65; Fri, 18 Mar 2016 19:25:05 +0100 (CET)
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0248.002; Fri, 18 Mar 2016 14:25:37 -0400
From: David Allan I <>
To: "" <>, 'Ross Callon' <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: [mpls] working group last call on draft-ietf-mpls-bfd-directed-02.txt
Thread-Index: AQHRe7lB57lSLFFx6Um0wB1zJIvyep9U1O4AgAq1gBA=
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2016 18:25:36 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <064501d17bbc$49f36110$ddda2330$>
In-Reply-To: <064501d17bbc$49f36110$ddda2330$>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_E6C17D2345AC7A45B7D054D407AA205C4B0EF43Aeusaamb105erics_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFlrCIsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyuXRPiC6jx5swgylLlCx+9Nxgtlh3+RSb xa2lK1kt/q64wuLA4rFkyU8mj+tNV9k9VmxeyRjAHMVlk5Kak1mWWqRvl8CV8W/WZuaCj22M FXPvWTYwbqnoYuTkkBAwkXj4ezkThC0mceHeerYuRi4OIYEjjBL7991nh3CWM0p8mvURrIpN wEBiz/8vjCC2iEC5xIvN65hBbGYBQ4mJE/eD2cICIRJ3961hh6gJlZj84yMrhG0l8brpLlic RUBV4tnBbWBxXgFfiacP/jNCLOtmlPi+Yj7YAk4Ba4kl37rAbEag876fWsMEsUxc4taT+VBn C0gs2XOeGcIWlXj5+B8rhK0kMef1Najj8iU6L6xiglgmKHFy5hOWCYyis5CMmoWkbBaSMoi4 jsSC3Z/YIGxtiWULXzPD2GcOPGZCFl/AyL6KkaO0uCAnN93IcBMjMO6OSbA57mDc2+t5iFGA g1GJh7dg+eswIdbEsuLK3EOMEhzMSiK8R93ehAnxpiRWVqUW5ccXleakFh9ilOZgURLn/fbx cpiQQHpiSWp2ampBahFMlomDU6qBsfr0eTndZzPnJCz8efPI9a9/BEwevm/9F2RhnT3z8tpn v5ckTZlwbbtp7qvaL3HumxfPaWoyWbX5W88N13rRr3uFfTbwflZ6crBVRz7jRGV9/asg9c6U jACpvUcERV26rJi7Gr4Ensxvjzp+tfR90tOtkp67lqa/6mfg4FjVd3bidPN5Nt1lR5VYijMS DbWYi4oTAeQpFz23AgAA
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, 18 Mar 2016 18:25:41 -0000


Truth in advertising here; IMO my employer's  policy is "disclose early, disclose often and license RAND" as good corporate citizens. The IPR in question was disclosed on the MPLS  list in July of 2015 (I just checked the archive).

If there is a reasonable expectation of an unencumbered alternative then seeking an alternative make sense, but the appropriate disclosure has been out there for 9+ months, and no alternative would appear to be forthcoming. Suddenly seeking one now seems to be just a bit counter productive....

So to me the only real question is "does the WG think this is a problem worth solving". I would think the answer to that is a self-evident "yes"

My 2 cents

From: mpls [] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel
Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016 9:35 AM
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