Re: [tcpm] IPR check for draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc793bis-22

"Scharf, Michael" <Michael.Scharf@hs-esslingen.de> Thu, 20 May 2021 14:32 UTC

Return-Path: <Michael.Scharf@hs-esslingen.de>
X-Original-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 111DE3A18D2 for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 May 2021 07:32:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=hs-esslingen.de
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 M0dq71Jmy3h1 for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 May 2021 07:31:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.hs-esslingen.de (mail.hs-esslingen.de [134.108.32.78]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CC4883A11C8 for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 May 2021 07:31:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail.hs-esslingen.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id D150125A12; Thu, 20 May 2021 16:31:53 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=hs-esslingen.de; s=mail; t=1621521113; bh=+iLRp39xKCnqEpw0ZXJf9AovS1aU2p0PUdBgJHkXMDU=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=LveBRGlnPF/MAIzoHVfEBa/cxu8XCDvq/Dyt9LKz5yPhVxEaIsyy3zIGIzGposWuK 3/YrTciV2fvJvWqaoKps37q3m4GKjKv4ZCmniUlWzlzDn1KA9x/pFZALVBPSh84Dit uVNRAuqkfXKgjn68d0Aj4KNBMTkQ/8Gt3At3vOLs=
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-2.7.1 (20120429) (Debian) at hs-esslingen.de
Received: from mail.hs-esslingen.de ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (hs-esslingen.de [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GavhUtog7vMb; Thu, 20 May 2021 16:31:52 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from rznt8202.rznt.rzdir.fht-esslingen.de (rznt8202.hs-esslingen.de [134.108.48.165]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.hs-esslingen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Thu, 20 May 2021 16:31:52 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from rznt8202.rznt.rzdir.fht-esslingen.de (134.108.48.165) by rznt8202.rznt.rzdir.fht-esslingen.de (134.108.48.165) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2176.14; Thu, 20 May 2021 16:31:52 +0200
Received: from rznt8202.rznt.rzdir.fht-esslingen.de ([fe80::aca4:171a:3ee1:57e0]) by rznt8202.rznt.rzdir.fht-esslingen.de ([fe80::aca4:171a:3ee1:57e0%3]) with mapi id 15.01.2176.014; Thu, 20 May 2021 16:31:52 +0200
From: "Scharf, Michael" <Michael.Scharf@hs-esslingen.de>
To: Wesley Eddy <wes@mti-systems.com>, "tcpm@ietf.org" <tcpm@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: IPR check for draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc793bis-22
Thread-Index: AddLOI5hyf2lcO9UTyWSP36Jsxeg5gBaELgAADhT2uA=
Date: Thu, 20 May 2021 14:31:52 +0000
Message-ID: <71eb2822191c41e4bef06fc6ae840070@hs-esslingen.de>
References: <cbc909ae00c349298e4db5a7aaba0558@hs-esslingen.de> <e4ba4aea-f211-4d89-c34d-313954b99b21@mti-systems.com>
In-Reply-To: <e4ba4aea-f211-4d89-c34d-313954b99b21@mti-systems.com>
Accept-Language: de-DE, en-US
Content-Language: de-DE
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [134.108.140.248]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/7ntfBdVnvlCd3Ook7wDsUhBnjZc>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] IPR check for draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc793bis-22
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <tcpm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tcpm/>
List-Post: <mailto:tcpm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 20 May 2021 14:32:02 -0000

Hi all,

The IPR disclosure related to RFC 5961 is documented e.g. in datatracker for a long time (since year 2004) and it should thus be well-known. RFC 5961 mostly affects MAY-12 in 793bis, and MAY-12 is not mandatory to implement.

At least I have no means to verify whether patents related to RFC 5961 apply to the wording in 793bis, or not.

As document shepherd, I plan to record the potential applicability of the IPR disclosure related to RFC 5961 in my write-up for 793bis.

In my understanding, the TCPM working group is aware of the IPR disclosure related to RFC 5961, and the TCPM working group is fine with the currently proposed text in 793bis related to RFC 5961.

Yet, I'd like to double check that this is indeed TCPM consensus, just to be on the safe side.

Michael

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wesley Eddy <wes@mti-systems.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2021 3:19 PM
> To: Scharf, Michael <Michael.Scharf@hs-esslingen.de>de>; tcpm@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: IPR check for draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc793bis-22
> 
> On 5/17/2021 12:37 PM, Scharf, Michael wrote:
> > Wes, all,
> >
> > In preparation of the shepherd write-up, the formal IPR check is required.
> Given the importance of 793bis, I run the IPR check on the TCPM mailing list.
> >
> > @Wes as editor: Please confirm that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures
> required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have
> already been filed.
> 
> Other than one case below, I'm not aware of any IPR.
> 
> There is an IPR disclosure in the datatracker on RFC 5961, which is one
> source of changes included in 793bis:
> 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/421/
> 
> In all places in 793bis where the recommendations from 5961 are
> mentioned, 5961 is prominently referenced (making the IPR also easy to
> find) and they are described as optional / "MAY", not required.
> 
> Perhaps that disclosure should be updated by Cisco to link to 793bis as
> well?
>