Re: Working Group Last Call on BFD Authentication Documents (expires September 13, 2019)

[Manav Bhatia <[e-mail]>]

I support all 3 documents.

On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 8:45 PM Jeffrey Haas <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Working Group,
>
> As we discussed in Montreal at IETF-105, the last hang up on progressing
> the
> authentication documents (thread copied below) was concerns on the IPR
> against them.
>
> The holder of the IPR believes their discloures are consistent with prior
> IPR posted against the BFD suite of published RFCs.o
>
> We are thus proceeding with the Working Group Last Call for these
> documents.
> You are encouraged to provide technical feedback for the contents of the
> documents, which addresses providing stronger authentication on the BFD
> protocol.
>
> Please indicate whether you believe these documents should be advanced to
> the IESG for publication as RFCs.
>
> -- Jeff and Reshad
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 02, 2019 at 02:37:15PM -0400, Jeffrey Haas wrote:
> > Working Group,
> >
> > A followup on this item.
> >
> > Currently, the status is identical to that which was last posted.  Mahesh
> > did make contact with Ciena IPR holders regarding the state of the
> license.
> > It is their belief that their disclosure is consistent with similar IPR
> > filed against BFD.  Citing two similar ones:
> >
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/516/
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1419/
> >
> > It also appears to be their belief that the current wording doesn't
> require
> > that a license fee is due.  However, this is private commentary.
> >
> > At this point, my recommendation to the working group is we decide if
> we'll
> > proceed with the publication process.  Let's use this time prior to IETF
> 105
> > to discuss any pending issues on these documents.
> >
> > -- Jeff
> >
> > On Sat, Feb 16, 2019 at 12:07:40PM -0500, 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
> > > RAND.
> > >
> > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/3328/
> > >
> > > 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.
> > >
> > >
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/u8rvWwvDWRKI3jseGHecAB9WtDo
> > >
> > > 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
>
>