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

[Santosh P K <[e-mail]>]

I support all three documents.

On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 9:22 AM Ashesh Mishra <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> As author, I support all three drafts.
>
> On Sep 10, 2019, at 7:13 PM, Manav Bhatia <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> 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
>>
>>