Re: [PWE3] IPR issue with draft-ietf-pwe3-p2mp-pw-requirements-06

Hi Giles, Andy,
Hope the reply is not too late.  I agree with the changes from Giles. But
the "bidirectional connectivity" term may not be appropriate in this
scenario. The connectivity between Root PE and each Leaf PE is P2MP +
Returned P2P LSP. 
Could we say:
"For that purpose the P2MP PW solution MAY support optional return path from
each Leaf PE to Root PE."

Regards
Lizhong

> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 09:12:29 -0500
> From: "Andrew G. Malis" <agmalis@gmail.com>
> To: "Giles Heron (giheron)" <giheron@cisco.com>
> Cc: "<draft-ietf-pwe3-p2mp-pw-requirements@tools.ietf.org>"
> 	<draft-ietf-pwe3-p2mp-pw-requirements@tools.ietf.org>rg>,
> "pwe3@ietf.org"
> 	<pwe3@ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: [PWE3] IPR issue with
> 	draft-ietf-pwe3-p2mp-pw-requirements-06
> Message-ID:
> 	<CAA=duU1HSFzhG0iV6bzsPJmpNkHrH7YE4vsp3998wYw0EPyrkw@
> mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> 
> Not having seen any further discussion on this thread, I would like the
> authors to implement Giles' suggestion here. Once the new revision has
> been uploaded, I'll complete the process of submitting the draft to the
IESG
> for publication.
> 
> Thanks,
> Andy
> 
> 
> On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 1:00 PM, Giles Heron (giheron) <giheron@cisco.com>
> wrote:
> > I think we have consensus amongst the authors that we can remove the
> mention of P2P and MP2P in section 3.1 - leaving any details of how to
> implement the return path to solution docs.
> >
> > So we'll end section 3.1 with "For that purpose the P2MP PW solution MAY
> support optional bidirectional connectivity between the Root PE and each
> Leaf PE."
> >
> > does anyone object to that?
> >
> > Giles
> >
> > On 7 Jan 2014, at 11:02, Andrew G. Malis <agmalis@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Adrian,
> >>
> >> Thanks!
> >>
> >> WG and draft authors,
> >>
> >> Adrian asked (and I repeat for myself as well):
> >>
> >>> What do the authors and WG think? Would removal of an option for the
> >>> creation of a return path diminish the document?
> >>
> >> Any other opinions?
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Andy
> >>
> >> On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 5:46 AM, Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
> wrote:
> >>> Hi Andy,
> >>>
> >>> Let me speak as an individual contributor.
> >>>
> >>> I think this may have got buried under the pile of Christmas cards.
> >>>
> >>> Looking at the IPR terms and the disclosure dates, I can't say that
> >>> I am personally happy to have this I-D go ahead covered by this
> disclosure.
> >>>
> >>> While I accept that this document is a requirements spec and so it
> >>> may be hard to conceive how the IPR applies (there being nothing in
> >>> a requirements spec that I can see would be implemented) i think
> >>> that the requirements necessarily drive the solutions and thus a
solution
> is likely to be caught by this IPR.
> >>>
> >>> However, it seems to my reading of the reported patent that this IPR
> >>> covers MP2P PWs.
> >>> Looking at the I-D, the mention of MP2P is very limited (at the
> >>> bottom of section 3.1).
> >>>
> >>> My suggestion, therefore, is to remove the text in section 3.1 that
> >>> may be encumbered so that this I-D can move ahead without any
> >>> disclosed IPR. i think that would be a relatively minor change
> >>> (although it is text that has been in the I-D for a long time).
> >>>
> >>> What do the authors and WG think? Would removal of an option for the
> >>> creation of a return path diminish the document?
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Adrian
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: pwe3 [mailto:pwe3-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Andrew G.
> >>>> Malis
> >>>> Sent: 23 December 2013 20:03
> >>>> To: pwe3@ietf.org
> >>>> Cc: draft-ietf-pwe3-p2mp-pw-requirements@tools.ietf.org
> >>>> Subject: [PWE3] IPR issue with
> >>>> draft-ietf-pwe3-p2mp-pw-requirements-06
> >>>>
> >>>> I would like to make the WG aware of a potential IPR issue with
> >>>> draft-ietf-pwe3-p2mp-pw-requirements-06, which I've been getting
> >>>> ready for submission to the IESG. On Nov. 13, 2013, ORANGE filed an
> >>>> IPR disclosure, https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2249/ . The IPR
> >>>> concerns multipoint to point PWs, which are are one of two optional
> >>>> return paths discussed in draft-ietf-pwe3-p2mp-pw-requirements-06.
> >>>> Point-to-point PWs are the other optional return path discussed in
> >>>> the draft.
> >>>>
> >>>> Given that this IPR was disclosed late in the process, before
> >>>> submitting this draft to the IESG, I would like to get a sense of
> >>>> the WG as to whether it is OK to submit the draft as is, or if the
> >>>> WG would prefer that the optional MP2P return path be removed from
> >>>> the draft.
> >>>>
> >>>> As this is over the holidays, and many people are on vacation, I
> >>>> won't take any action on the draft until at least the second week
> >>>> of January.
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks,
> >>>> Andy
> >
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Subject: Digest Footer
> 
> _______________________________________________
> pwe3 mailing list
> pwe3@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> End of pwe3 Digest, Vol 117, Issue 5
> ************************************