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 <[email protected]> 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:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Chris Bowers > *Sent:* 20 October 2016 16:11 > *To:* [email protected]; [email protected] > *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:* '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; [email protected] > *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 ([email protected]) > 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 > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg > >
