Re: [tsvwg] Call for feedback after IETF-113: Should draft-ietf-tsvwg-dtls-over-sctp-bis obsolete RFC 6083?

[[e-mail]]

> On 4. May 2022, at 10:08, Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund=[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>>> 
>>> (b) Modify the work item to publish draft-ietf-tsvwg-dtls-over-sctp-bis
> as a
>> PS that does NOT obsolete RFC 6083. This would postpone any decision
>> about whether to obsolete RFC 6083 and allows a different update for
>> RFC6083. This also requires that draft-ietf-tsvwg-dtls-over-sctp-bis
> includes
>> consideration of how the two altenative specs can co-exist.
> 
>> If it makes sense or not to spend the resources depends on whether it is
>> possible
>> to work around the IPRs or not. This can't be decided before the IPRs have
>> been
>> published. But I guess the authors of draft-ietf-tsvwg-dtls-over-sctp-bis
> are
>> not
>> willing to wait for that to happen before the document progresses.
> 
> No, we don't see waiting is particular productive. The first IPR will be 18
> month by the end of June. However, the second one will not be 18 month until
> somewhere in Q1 next year. From my perspective I think it is better to
> continue towards publication of draft-ietf-tsvwg-dtls-over-sctp-bis and the
> question of obsoleting or not will need to be settled prior to the WG last
> call. Hopefully that would be coming up rather soon as we hope to solved all
> issues with the next version. 
Hi Magnus,

thanks for the clarification.

So I learned is that the new process of doing (at least) SCTP work in TSVWG is:

1. Have an idea how to solve a relevant problem.
2. File an IPR covering the solution.
3. Publish some revisions of an individual IDs describing the solution.
4. Get your individual ID adopted as a WG document without declaring your IPR.
5. Publish some revisions of the ID as a WG document.
6. Declare your IPR.
7. Publish some more revisions of the ID as a WG document.
8. Possibly file more IPRs and declare them.
9. Do a WGLC and expect that to go through without providing information
   what all of the IPRs are about.

Is that correct?

Best regards
Michael
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Magnus Westerlund