RE: WG adoption poll on draft-nitish-vrrp-bfd-04

Chris Bowers <cbowers@juniper.net> Thu, 20 October 2016 15:10 UTC

Return-Path: <cbowers@juniper.net>
X-Original-To: rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E4A61295AC; Thu, 20 Oct 2016 08:10:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=junipernetworks.onmicrosoft.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id c-gMhzeMgAFq; Thu, 20 Oct 2016 08:10:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from NAM01-SN1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-sn1nam01on0134.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.32.134]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C1E9E1294FB; Thu, 20 Oct 2016 08:10:50 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=junipernetworks.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-juniper-net; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=0C8Hn7lGIgNrTJFN9U7PQq2VnuSAcKZH/L2+yo7JX6I=; b=Ig9UrPUQOCo6+Y707eHCmTKHE9wsy56NOVnhi5ojfhPlO8N318fhJSGhkfhE1lGMDdIICkKpqJy10EDvGwO7B0fpjY+cmUM3WYImB+C6cq+EpO40Jv8+bssV5MN56B+LTmmZ9RAjFBcTPj0ODzAJbLw1U7syGVEdOsXwhY80qkA=
Received: from MWHPR05MB2829.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.168.245.11) by MWHPR05MB2831.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.168.245.13) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384_P384) id 15.1.669.5; Thu, 20 Oct 2016 15:10:48 +0000
Received: from MWHPR05MB2829.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.168.245.11]) by MWHPR05MB2829.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.168.245.11]) with mapi id 15.01.0669.018; Thu, 20 Oct 2016 15:10:48 +0000
From: Chris Bowers <cbowers@juniper.net>
To: "rtgwg@ietf.org" <rtgwg@ietf.org>, "rtg-bfd@ietf.org" <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: WG adoption poll on draft-nitish-vrrp-bfd-04
Thread-Topic: WG adoption poll on draft-nitish-vrrp-bfd-04
Thread-Index: AdIaZGPlJxb+ITrzQuavzBeZL6nhIQP77YQA
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2016 15:10:48 +0000
Message-ID: <MWHPR05MB2829CF8AB32089C947BA4214A9D50@MWHPR05MB2829.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=cbowers@juniper.net;
x-originating-ip: [66.129.239.10]
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 3d80baea-8176-4cdc-92de-08d3f8fb45f5
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; MWHPR05MB2831; 7:1KWb80l1mE5t53QoSi58vfawwWK5U8lCZd8RLzfMHsmCyblt8rw6944FsMkpLqxyFSgZO1dxgsuuCLQ2EuHGlBMFaZWsPazVlIpLEZOsojzz0NU36DvSN45/nAPiNLBBnwUWKlNIPYmNiI4sVw+aJv0m8Tk3kbL/vuHLibtzzqGLly+wudCvdeMhz5t2OoP+r2FTHmZLAdgo4EIEAXpKXTXlmKdX3xwYsBBMOk2DHpVqCBtW1CnSlf/kTWruqulXMTH4Era6qOlb8UcgSvkPHi5W+ZqUZuLq8V/bUZEYrr9Fo72MRI7IYuwqUhXY6fKhyp0ZmDqjXSTjvhRe17ylADMnupW9kBmJp70eT36Ahio=
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:MWHPR05MB2831;
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <MWHPR05MB2831B674EC498CD9AEF86AB7A9D50@MWHPR05MB2831.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:(120809045254105)(100405760836317)(21748063052155);
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(6040176)(601004)(2401047)(8121501046)(5005006)(3002001)(10201501046)(6055026); SRVR:MWHPR05MB2831; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:MWHPR05MB2831;
x-forefront-prvs: 01018CB5B3
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(6009001)(7916002)(189002)(377454003)(199003)(51444003)(68736007)(6116002)(19580395003)(305945005)(19580405001)(5660300001)(106356001)(3660700001)(105586002)(102836003)(99286002)(11100500001)(3280700002)(7696004)(2900100001)(7736002)(230783001)(10400500002)(450100001)(86362001)(77096005)(5001770100001)(8936002)(15975445007)(97736004)(87936001)(8676002)(9686002)(5002640100001)(7846002)(189998001)(2906002)(101416001)(92566002)(54356999)(81156014)(50986999)(3846002)(74316002)(586003)(66066001)(2501003)(107886002)(76576001)(33656002)(81166006)(122556002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:MWHPR05MB2831; H:MWHPR05MB2829.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1; LANG:en;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: juniper.net does not designate permitted sender hosts)
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_MWHPR05MB2829CF8AB32089C947BA4214A9D50MWHPR05MB2829namp_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 20 Oct 2016 15:10:48.2442 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: bea78b3c-4cdb-4130-854a-1d193232e5f4
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: MWHPR05MB2831
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtgwg/3G5P6GF6rDNOPPlnx64cgW_2IVo>
X-BeenThere: rtgwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Area Working Group <rtgwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtgwg>, <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rtgwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtgwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg>, <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2016 15:10:55 -0000

RTGWG,

At this point, I don't think that there is a consensus for the working group to adopt this draft
without more discussion of the issue raised by Loa Andersson and Adrian Farrel in the
following two emails.

https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtgwg/current/msg05712.html
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtgwg/current/msg05718.html

The main objection raised in these two emails is that the working group should work on
solutions that are either unencumbered by IPR or that are available on free-to-implementers
terms.   Loa and Adrian also point out that the current lack of visibility to the patent
application covered by the IPR disclosure for this draft means that it is currently not possible to
evaluate this situation with respect to this draft.

The reason for the IPR disclosure process is to allow working groups to take into consideration
the potential licensing of IPR when evaluating alternative technical solutions.  At this point,
adopting draft-nitish-vrrp-bfd-04 as the basis for work on standardizing the use of VRRP
with BFD without more discussion of this issue would imply that there is consensus that
the working group should not take potential licensing of IPR into account for this work.
I don't think there is currently consensus for this.

I encourage further discussion of this issue. I think that there may be the potential to
reach a consensus if the working group can come to an explicit agreement about whether
or not potential licensing of IPR should be taken into account when evaluating alternative
technologies for this work.

Chris

_____________________________________________
From: Chris Bowers
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2016 10:44 AM
To: 'rtgwg@ietf.org'; <rtgwg@ietf.org>;; rtg-bfd@ietf.org
Subject: WG adoption poll on draft-nitish-vrrp-bfd-04


RTGWG,

This email starts a two week poll to gauge consensus on adopting draft-nitish-vrrp-bfd-04
as an RTGWG working group document.

The BFD working group is also copied on this adoption poll.  We encourage participants in
BFD working group to provide their input on the adoption poll.  And should this document
be adopted as an RTGWG document, we would plan to copy the BFD WG on emails
related to this document to benefit from the BFD expertise in that WG in the development
of this document.

Please send your comments to the RTGWG mailing list (rtgwg@ietf.org<mailto:rtgwg@ietf.org>) indicating support
or opposition to the adoption of this document, along with the reasoning for that support
or opposition.

If you are listed as a document author or contributor, please respond to this email stating
whether or not you are aware of any relevant IPR.   The response needs to be sent to the
RTGWG mailing list. The document will not advance to the next stage until a response has
been received from each author and each individual that has contributed to the document.

At this point, the document has the following IPR disclosure associated with it.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2739/

This adoption poll will end on Friday October 14th.

Thanks,
Chris and Jeff