RE: working group adoption poll for draft-mirsky-bfd-p2mp-vrrp-use-case

[John E Drake <[e-mail]>]

Chris,

I saw your note, below, and read the draft.  It seems to me to be a straightforward and useful application of P2MP BFD to improve VRRP performance.

Yours Irrespectively,

John

From: rtgwg <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Chris Bowers
Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2018 12:32 PM
To: RTGWG <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: working group adoption poll for draft-mirsky-bfd-p2mp-vrrp-use-case

RTGWG,

This WG adoption poll ended last Friday.

One author and one non-author expressed support for adoption,
while no one expressed opposition to adoption. This adoption poll did
not produce any discussion or detailed feedback from anyone about the
draft itself.

I think there needs to be more technical discussion about the mechanism
proposed in this draft on the RTGWG list before consensus can be judged
either way..  I would encourage anyone interested in working on the
mechanism proposed in this draft to provide detailed feedback on the list..

Thanks,
Chris


On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 11:46 AM, Chris Bowers <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
RTGWG,

The authors of draft-mirsky-bfd-p2mp-vrrp-use-case have requested
that RTGWG adopt this draft as a WG document.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mirsky-bfd-p2mp-vrrp-use-case/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__datatracker.ietf.org_doc_draft-2Dmirsky-2Dbfd-2Dp2mp-2Dvrrp-2Duse-2Dcase_&d=DwMFaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=CRB2tJiQePk0cT-h5LGhEWH-s_xXXup3HzvBSMRj5VE&m=UGesBa8K-cFmdWFoJiRJAr3d-wmz1tjG4QkPou--BBA&s=JE54j1T5HCOFFMSpIdJeJDt6-vnvxvAXCmvPIxWG4dI&e=>

Please indicate whether or not you support adoption of the draft
as a WG document.  An explanation of why or why not is also very helpful.

The two authors have already indicated that they know of no relevant IPR
other than what has already been disclosed. The draft has two IPR disclosures.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/3133/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__datatracker.ietf.org_ipr_3133_&d=DwMFaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=CRB2tJiQePk0cT-h5LGhEWH-s_xXXup3HzvBSMRj5VE&m=UGesBa8K-cFmdWFoJiRJAr3d-wmz1tjG4QkPou--BBA&s=pk16VtPdqbuOIUplRaIaqQkLZC5jLktLBIFi-IHpy-A&e=>
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/3135/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__datatracker.ietf.org_ipr_3135_&d=DwMFaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=CRB2tJiQePk0cT-h5LGhEWH-s_xXXup3HzvBSMRj5VE&m=UGesBa8K-cFmdWFoJiRJAr3d-wmz1tjG4QkPou--BBA&s=XDjKpJ5diMIKS2QsfDqNVTrpGkNSWFZBwSBPV7SZ9RU&e=>

For some history related to this draft, please see:
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtgwg/current/msg06572.html<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mail-2Darchive_web_rtgwg_current_msg06572.html&d=DwMFaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=CRB2tJiQePk0cT-h5LGhEWH-s_xXXup3HzvBSMRj5VE&m=UGesBa8K-cFmdWFoJiRJAr3d-wmz1tjG4QkPou--BBA&s=gQ7Z41wa7_BikpO07YOBcJXMlKJSdvG7DRWJLZzBa5k&e=>

For information about IPR in IETF technology, see RFC 8179.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc8179/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__datatracker.ietf.org_doc_rfc8179_&d=DwMFaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=CRB2tJiQePk0cT-h5LGhEWH-s_xXXup3HzvBSMRj5VE&m=UGesBa8K-cFmdWFoJiRJAr3d-wmz1tjG4QkPou--BBA&s=44SV9gx_BGbW8zWgoAJfTuxz5JmneP2d4ila-ObeKxo&e=>

Note that one of the basic principles regarding how the IETF deals with IPR claims (from RFC 8179)
is that: "The IETF will make no determination about the validity of any particular IPR claim."

Since Jeff Tantsura is a co-author, he will not be involved in judging consensus.

The closing date for this poll is Friday, July 6th.

Thanks,
Chris