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

Wesley Eddy <> Wed, 19 May 2021 13:19 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0213C3A0E3B for <>; Wed, 19 May 2021 06:19:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dZkda57xVUWD for <>; Wed, 19 May 2021 06:19:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::82c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 93CAC3A0E31 for <>; Wed, 19 May 2021 06:19:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id s12so833534qta.3 for <>; Wed, 19 May 2021 06:19:26 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-language; bh=lAmrim+I7RgbA6QqQqHozHRG+87Ypu8r9etsN8iaKNw=; b=v7BzzeSJgb8wyEwk1bVVbHk73A8fyRCV47nVsn8p4rwbm6XSpLpvaK4V/Hp/Ln2cte 2NpiafZZZBPXBAmXnQ0ddUSefOdY2s/wPv4JIW1GlpSN+pWegRT5Eqv+8ZWQxyvLkQQm HY/HC0qj9Sh+aIbmopOJVYMHR89Z2JBFoKb9WSAsHTlUbA8v7yqh5aYc/L49uFqCu/gg iMxffvpajQzATI+Dwij+YKCw5U4LAAJBfdIjyRxo7AW051qb6yVyi7ukpPEhVszU7t1o D9cgGWPpnpO0YYwDbIPJgSe8iJs+5UiHbnACqkyny9S2yzQ/One8K2Sh3PPJ8n8k3TZt 6KWg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding :content-language; bh=lAmrim+I7RgbA6QqQqHozHRG+87Ypu8r9etsN8iaKNw=; b=BQiNV/0mRli306BAl6/xBu15yMLMwZj6mZHjemJwQ29TvGi79F7MYP18gpnPBo/Uox OYEMDnYnnNjPfSzcq3BGHntqEZMtHY/VaH80rLoy/IPaXHLVDeouv/I3P2DsGmLSffSP 0J/DUDvdXqzoYQkfl6/4FMHfvbJ4VA+YoJoXMNwgXi69LnajgLgq0aEOT3GYAVh01Jzs mK0BZKOByNy8ZMocpiUM7eBlriOGQi9uyXOtNCg3BoXQoa2dV/viK1j1RUHnCWUp5YBz yhiRf81bAU86wkUq4AqAGLe/CTiq6KTVJwYM15XCynvlKZQ35cayQvDN10A4ENzYWmuj aE0A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533IZslMNY2HoKYHdnHOG2v6AIDClHGgK7OPHzDH5TG/maPCcryU S+tJY1LKnRh8rPBKpSe8rM+jT6BU/A+Dgh9t
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyhTlAvBPwVe8u2uwTuPLD2PHHASuIqze8RPNWUobNGXWbNlSr2/Nnl2eiCNq0oWX3R7oSQgQ==
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:4450:: with SMTP id m16mr6274797qtn.74.1621430364019; Wed, 19 May 2021 06:19:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) by with ESMTPSA id f127sm15185165qkd.81.2021. (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 19 May 2021 06:19:23 -0700 (PDT)
To: "Scharf, Michael" <>, "" <>
References: <>
From: Wesley Eddy <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 19 May 2021 09:19:22 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.10.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] IPR check for draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc793bis-22
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 May 2021 13:19:31 -0000

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:

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