Re: Brian Haberman's No Objection on draft-ietf-bfd-rfc5884-clarifications-03: (with COMMENT)

[Brian Haberman <[e-mail]>]

On 10/14/15 11:17 AM, Jeffrey Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 10:53:11AM -0400, Brian Haberman wrote:
>> On 10/14/15 10:45 AM, Jeffrey Haas wrote:
>>> On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 07:38:27AM -0700, Brian Haberman wrote:
>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> COMMENT:
>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> Just a question on this draft... Given its status as clarifying (and
>>>> updating) RFC 5884, does it also inherit any of the IPR claims levied
>>>> against RFC 5884?
>>>>
>>>
>>> All existing IPR stands.  No new IPR is introduced.
>>
>> Maybe my parser is broken, but does this mean:
>>
>> 1. None of the IPR disclosures filed against 5884 apply to this draft
>>
>> 2. All/some of the IPR disclosures filed against 5884 apply, but
>> disclosures have not (will not?) be filed against this draft?
> 
> Since this document only clarifies 5884, the IPR against 5884 is still
> applicable.  The clarifications do not introduce any new IPR against the
> material covered in 5884.

I wasn't expecting new IPR, I was wondering if any of the old IPR may
have gone away.  I know, wishful thinking.

> 
> A bit more flippantly, just because we publish a clarification document with
> no additional IPR doesn't mean we think we're getting rid of the existing
> IPR considerations. :-)

I have seen it happen before though and was wondering.

Thanks for the quick follow-up!

Brian