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

Dear All,
to the best of my knowledge and understanding the disclosed IPR may be
relevant only to Section 4.

Regards,
Greg

On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 7:20 AM, Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk> wrote:

> It might (or might not :-) help if I give some clarification of my
> position on this draft.
>
> [I'm not trying to tell the chairs how to do their job!]
>
>
>
> We are not in a position at the moment to make our own individual
> assessments of whether or how the disclosed IPR covers the draft. This is
> because we cannot yet see the content of the IPR filed in the disclosed
> application. That means we can take one of two approaches:
>
>
>
> 1. Assume that the IPR covers a substantial portion of the draft
>
> 2. Wait and see
>
>
>
> In the first case we have to decide whether we want to go ahead with this
> work on that assumption and in the knowledge of the licensing terms. The
> alternatives are:
>
> a. Abandon the work
>
> b. Re-invent the solution to avoid the IPR (which necessarily involves
> waiting until we can read it)
>
> c. Carry on regardless deciding that we are willing to live with the
> disclosure
>
>
>
> In the second case we would delay progression until we can see the IPR and
> decide what to do. The alternative would then be exactly the same a, b, and
> c as above.
>
>
>
> It might be pragmatic to continue to work on the current draft. That work
> could happen without adoption (lack of adoption is not reason not to work
> on the draft, and the unadopted draft can still be "under the care of the
> WG") or could include adoption. If the draft is adopted, however, I would
> be very wary of the implied momentum: that is, when the WG has been working
> on the draft for a while it must not be taken to imply that any consensus
> was reached with respect to the IPR and it must be understood that the
> discussion was deferred not concluded. Future arguments that "we have
> invested so much time and effort" will not carry water!
>
>
>
> All that considered, I would be OK to see work continue on the document
> pending availability of the IPR in the hope that when we can see the IPR we
> will attempt to find a solution that avoids the IPR.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Adrian
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* rtgwg [mailto:rtgwg-bounces@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *Chris Bowers
> *Sent:* 20 October 2016 16:11
> *To:* rtgwg@ietf.org; rtg-bfd@ietf.org
> *Subject:* RE: WG adoption poll on draft-nitish-vrrp-bfd-04
>
>
>
> 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)
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtgwg mailing list
> rtgwg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
>
>