Hi Greg,
I still don't understand what's the intended purpose of the draft. Does it
change/update any procedures in 5880/5883 and if so could you please clarify
why and how?
Regards,
Reshad.
On 2019-02-16, 1:46 PM, "Rtg-bfd on behalf of Jeffrey Haas"
<rtg-bfd-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of jh...@pfrc.org> wrote:
Greg,
On Sat, Feb 16, 2019 at 09:38:08AM -0800, Greg Mirsky wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 16, 2019 at 8:33 AM Jeffrey Haas <jh...@pfrc.org> wrote:
> > Thanks for the update on the IPR declaration. It's good to see that the
> > terms of the licensing have shifted such that open source
implementations
> > would be able to be done. I'll note that we're still in that limbo
phase
> > wherein it's not possible for the Working Group, or holders of IPR
against
> > the impacted RFCs 5880, 5883, and 5884, know what is being asserted
that is
> > distinct vs. previously published IPR declarations.
> >
> GIM>> My understanding of the legal side of IPR Disclosures is that the
> last overwrites, including in regard to the licensing terms, previous
> disclosures.
The IPR disclosure and the licensing terms are clear.
The patent is still pending. The draft is against procedures largely
specified in 5880, 5883, and 5884. Presumably IPR has been filed because
you're saying that you're doing something new against these documents.
> GIM>> The behavior of the system in Demand mode is introduced as optional.
> And that is precisely the update to RFC 5880.
I don't understand.
Basically, 5880, 5884 leave demand as an option. It's built into the specs.
It's unclear what you're suggesting being changed.
-- Jeff
