IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [OPSAWG] Call for adoption, draft-krishnan-opsawg-large-flow-load-balancing/

ramki Krishnan <ramk@Brocade.com> Tue, 07 May 2013 15:56 UTC

Return-Path: <ramk@Brocade.com>
X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0333D21F8F3C for <opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 May 2013 08:56:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.265
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.265 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hwbdjTz4Yen4 for <opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 May 2013 08:56:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx0a-000f0801.pphosted.com (mx0a-000f0801.pphosted.com [67.231.144.122]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44CFA21F8616 for <opsawg@ietf.org>; Tue, 7 May 2013 08:56:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0000542 [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-000f0801.pphosted.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with SMTP id r47FqVrQ002566; Tue, 7 May 2013 08:56:45 -0700
Received: from hq1wp-exchub01.corp.brocade.com ([144.49.131.13]) by mx0a-000f0801.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 1c6t05rak8-1 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Tue, 07 May 2013 08:56:45 -0700
Received: from HQ1WP-EXHUB02.corp.brocade.com (10.70.38.14) by HQ1WP-EXCHUB01.corp.brocade.com (10.70.36.99) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.2.309.2; Tue, 7 May 2013 08:56:45 -0700
Received: from HQ1-EXCH01.corp.brocade.com ([fe80::8c73:93bf:41b4:1443]) by HQ1WP-EXHUB02.corp.brocade.com ([fe80::e1f4:a4c8:696b:3780%10]) with mapi; Tue, 7 May 2013 08:56:43 -0700
From: ramki Krishnan <ramk@Brocade.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>, "opsawg@ietf.org" <opsawg@ietf.org>
Date: Tue, 07 May 2013 08:56:36 -0700
Thread-Topic: [OPSAWG] Call for adoption, draft-krishnan-opsawg-large-flow-load-balancing/
Thread-Index: Ac5BRG+tH5tuj+AET4GRklqm4l2x8QAAJDzQAn1vIXA=
Message-ID: <C7634EB63EFD984A978DFB46EA5174F2BFD83F21C7@HQ1-EXCH01.corp.brocade.com>
References: <51656616.4070003@gmail.com> <51781D07.1040308@bogus.com> <m2ppxjr37m.wl%randy@psg.com> <51786C36.2060308@gmail.com> <C7634EB63EFD984A978DFB46EA5174F2BFD824EF93@HQ1-EXCH01.corp.brocade.com>
In-Reply-To: <C7634EB63EFD984A978DFB46EA5174F2BFD824EF93@HQ1-EXCH01.corp.brocade.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:5.10.8626, 1.0.431, 0.0.0000 definitions=2013-05-07_06:2013-05-07, 2013-05-07, 1970-01-01 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 spamscore=0 suspectscore=2 phishscore=0 adultscore=0 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=7.0.1-1211240000 definitions=main-1305070143
Cc: Sanjay Khanna <skhanna@brocade.com>, "bhumip.khasnabish@zteusa.com" <bhumip.khasnabish@zteusa.com>, "ning.so@tatacommunications.com" <ning.so@tatacommunications.com>
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Call for adoption, draft-krishnan-opsawg-large-flow-load-balancing/
X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List <opsawg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/opsawg>, <mailto:opsawg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/opsawg>
List-Post: <mailto:opsawg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:opsawg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg>, <mailto:opsawg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 May 2013 15:56:54 -0000

All,

Based on expert advice from Brian/Randy, we have removed all IPR related implementation detail from the latest version of the draft -- see below.
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-krishnan-opsawg-large-flow-load-balancing/

We have also updated the IPR disclosure (other notes section) to reflect this -- see below.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2063/

Thanks,
Ramki (on behalf of the co-authors)

-----Original Message-----
From: opsawg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:opsawg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of ramki Krishnan
Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2013 4:40 PM
To: Brian E Carpenter; Randy Bush
Cc: opsawg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Call for adoption, draft-krishnan-opsawg-large-flow-load-balancing/

Thanks Brian, agreed.

Thanks,
Ramki

-----Original Message-----
From: opsawg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:opsawg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Brian E Carpenter
Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2013 4:35 PM
To: Randy Bush
Cc: opsawg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Call for adoption, draft-krishnan-opsawg-large-flow-load-balancing/

On 25/04/2013 10:09, Randy Bush wrote:
>> I came to the attention of the Chairs and the ADs during the call for 
>> adoption that an IPR disclosure was likely pending on this draft. It 
>> has since transpired.
>>
>> The disclosure can be reviewed here.
>>
>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?option=document_search&id_document_tag=draft-krishnan-opsawg-large-flow-load-balancing.
>>
>> In my opinion this is bit late frankly but short of 6701 remedy 
>> territory.  I have asked the chairs to extend the current call for 
>> additional time (which they should chime in on), and I would ask that 
>> if the disclosure alters you opinion of the document that you please 
>> make your concerns known.
>>
>> I'd like to thank the authors for their candor, and the chairs for 
>> bringing this to our attention.
> 
> i sent a concerned private email to some folk.  one replied
> 
>     The authors have indicated that the stuff on which they've filed the
>     patent application is not the only mechanism that can be used for
>     large flow detection - i.e. this can be implemented without using
>     their to-be-encumbered technology.
> 
> if this is the case, why not simply remove the to-be-encumbered 
> technology from the document?

I agree; it's not worth the pain, for an example algorithm in an Informational document. (The same goes for
draft-krishnan-ipfix-flow-aware-packet-sampling.)

    Brian
> 
> otherwise, we potentially will waste a lot of time over this ipr claim.
> 
> randy
> _______________________________________________
> OPSAWG mailing list
> OPSAWG@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
> 
_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list
OPSAWG@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list
OPSAWG@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email