Re: Progressing BFD authentication documents

Greg Mirsky <> Sat, 16 February 2019 17:22 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 619A0130F1B for <>; Sat, 16 Feb 2019 09:22:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iGx5GaEiy4iP for <>; Sat, 16 Feb 2019 09:22:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::235]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BEE3F130F04 for <>; Sat, 16 Feb 2019 09:22:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id g80so10974352ljg.6 for <>; Sat, 16 Feb 2019 09:22:50 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=DPTFCWEPQyQ5L4gSkcqnbvctbaSnofFoyZNgj/gJ+Cw=; b=uSun6bCxaGj3lKaVdSRoPc08irhtzx/E0xO1JfuPxoWdScqomxMswYrIKkPvr5zhCA 3pXPiSwVVOO4885BLa+uOrBCFb7SCAlnDo5Fi5xIbJa2gSFl81J1h94oEdYhpKLucmzh Q/WpyJp2xmKFSXEJ4YmQXszxUOPiGnCj4tLj1Yw7gJCbXSBoIo0zHXC3S9b71rAoLeOm RKAeiwilAK+jPV6qAijahCGgZR3+/rUlCgUTR6Q0A1pyC/ncZsxy9HEneTQgpbvE3oYi +vvKjhSK/PdRt/3x2gCPI4xPmE6VRh9vJuEDC3SLP+55x+guoMMSHAKvyfH9DVbAJszu NUwg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=DPTFCWEPQyQ5L4gSkcqnbvctbaSnofFoyZNgj/gJ+Cw=; b=NPUoPDndh78vXsgMe3nj2QcqA/pEN9r/G7NJcTsnDlLot/XtlgmAFIg1rODjXMKb/x XzITKYXeN1edHQOPot5kLILxFuV3q6aLvOieFGNEI0HDWRrQn5B0sOjekKh7CaLkVZt4 qxmPHA/7dnRTQVCFcD0ojDUmpXkwG3ckJlJemd32lkxutga1u1RGuliRg1CnnRb1oPYV leZsSFo5yzbnVfHDwkN+PL65G92tcMVwkkZoxl8x67uZL6dVN22k8kV1anUSVA/8DTHf 6TFvsrzlPu0loMa99bZh34ApjTjdIZPzPjyNdY6D90Nry0kS5Ia3rEwbGTR7cxAazBFy hX+w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AHQUAuafO1TogayjMT2MOgwQT4AHbVcnVz+gMzXffi9wbxglWycEea3J h6y3SPUxDtcLIfyiWQgcYEbJ50/iEP/PjG/5h5p2Tg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AHgI3IZXrSdYNsTdx0W9/gqs0ol9wzJgUtSByxfqFQwjbqMbpR35lR6kv7Gf4/tZx8dt0xZNCpmxN6a2qhmfk7uVvuw=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:424f:: with SMTP id p76mr1684240lja.140.1550337768690; Sat, 16 Feb 2019 09:22:48 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Greg Mirsky <>
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2019 09:22:37 -0800
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: Progressing BFD authentication documents
To: Jeffrey Haas <>
Cc: rtg-bfd WG <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000fc188f0582062355"
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2019 17:22:53 -0000

Hi Jeff,
thank you for the clear and concise summary. I need to note that my
concerns are not only with how late the IPR Disclosure was made but, I want
to stress, with the licensing terms set forth by the holder of IPR that
allow for possible request of royalties from an implementor.


On Sat, Feb 16, 2019 at 9:08 AM Jeffrey Haas <> wrote:

> Working Group,
> On March 28, 2018, we started Working Group Last Call on the following
> document
> bundle:
>   draft-ietf-bfd-secure-sequence-numbers
>   draft-ietf-bfd-optimizing-authentication
>   draft-ietf-bfd-stability
> The same day, Mahesh Jethanandani acknowledged there was pending IPR
> declarations against these drafts.  An IPR declaration was finally posted
> on
> November 1, 2018.  In particular, it notes a patent.  The licenseing is
> In the time since the WGLC was requested, there were a number of technical
> comments made on these drafts.  It's my belief that all substantial
> technical comments had been addressed in the last posted version of these
> documents.  Note that there was one lingering comment about Yang
> considerations for the BFD module with regard to enabling this optimized
> authentication mode which can be dealt with separably.
> The chairs did not carry out a further consensus call to ensure that there
> are no further outstanding technical issues.
> On November 21, Greg Mirsky indicated an objection to progressing the
> document due to late disclosure.
> Since we are a little over a month prior to the upcoming IETF 104, this
> seems a good time to try to decide how the Working Group shall finish this
> work.  Since we are meeting in Prague, this may progress to microphone
> conversation.
> For the moment, the chairs' perceived status of the documents are:
> - No pending technical issues with the documents with one known issue.
> - Concerns over late disclosure of IPR.
> - No solid consensus from the Working Group that we're ready to proceed.
>   This part may be covered by a future consensus call, but let's hear list
>   discussion first.
> -- Jeff