[Pce] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006bis-03: (with COMMENT)

Alvaro Retana <aretana@cisco.com> Fri, 25 August 2017 16:50 UTC

Return-Path: <aretana@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: pce@ietf.org
Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8AE1132938; Fri, 25 Aug 2017 09:50:21 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Alvaro Retana <aretana@cisco.com>
To: "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006bis@ietf.org, Jonathan Hardwick <jonathan.hardwick@metaswitch.com>, pce-chairs@ietf.org, jonathan.hardwick@metaswitch.com, pce@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.58.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <150367982188.19690.1920206511588656401.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2017 09:50:21 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/pKfXPoFUGR6MXZj47qXneF8hxfE>
Subject: [Pce] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006bis-03: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
List-Id: Path Computation Element <pce.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/pce>, <mailto:pce-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/pce/>
List-Post: <mailto:pce@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pce-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce>, <mailto:pce-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2017 16:50:22 -0000

Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006bis-03: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:


I don't object the publication of this document.

However, I want to call attention to the latest IPR declaration [1] which seems
to have resulted in a very, very, very late claim against this document *and*
rfc6006.  Not only was the declaration done recently, but I don't think the WG
was explicitly made aware of it.  I did look at the archive and this is what I

- WG Chair asked the authors to update the system to reflect that the IPR
claimed against rfc6006 also applies to this document [2]

- a new IPR statement [1] was filed, which updated the previous one [3]

The problem is that the most recent statement [1] points to a patent ("US
12/404100") which is different from the one in the original statement [3] ("US
12/708048").  I take this update to mean that there is more IP than originally
claimed -- resulting in a very, very, very late statement.  Note that it came
in after the WGLC concluded and just a couple of days before the document was
submitted to the IESG for Publication.

I'll let the WG chairs and the responsible AD take appropriate actions.

[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2983/
[3] https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1686/