Re: WG Adoption request for draft-mirsky-bfd-mpls-demand

[Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]>]

Hi Jeff,
could you please clarify which of your roles, BFD WG chair or individual
contributor, you are in this discussion.

Regards,
Greg

On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 7:26 AM Jeffrey Haas <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Greg,
>
> Answering this message with the reply partially reorganized.
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 17, 2019 at 04:40:31PM -0800, Greg Mirsky wrote:
> > On Sat, Feb 16, 2019 at 10:46 AM Jeffrey Haas <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > > > GIM>> The behavior of the system in Demand mode is introduced as
> > > optional.
> > > > And that is precisely the update to RFC 5880.
> > >
> > > I don't understand.
> > >
> > > Basically, 5880, 5884 leave demand as an option.  It's built into the
> > > specs.
> > > It's unclear what you're suggesting being changed.
> > >
> > GIM2>> RFC 5884 leaves the Demand mode outside its scope. RFC 5884 does
> not
> > discuss how the Demand mode may be used in BFD over MPLS LSPs.
>
> Even thought the RFC says demand mode is out of scope, 5880 is clear about
> how demand mode works.  I'm not seeing anything in your draft that alters
> that procedure.
>
> Basically, no draft is needed for a one-liner: you can use demand mode.
>
> > GIM2>> Is the fact that the patent application is not yet published the
> > sole foundation for your objection to adopting this draft as Chair of BFD
> > WG or as an individual contributor? Is there any IETF document that
> > requires that the patent must be published before the draft can be
> adopted
> > or published as RFC?
>
> The sole reason for mentioning this is demand mode is clear.  BFD over mpls
> is clear.  You're asserting some sort of IPR on things that are already
> clear.  So, either your draft itself is unclear on some new thing you're
> asserting IPR on, or you're not actually covering something new.  That's
> it.
>
> -- Jeff
>