Hi Jeff, could you please clarify which of your roles, BFD WG chair or individual contributor, you are in this discussion.
Regards, Greg On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 7:26 AM Jeffrey Haas <jh...@pfrc.org> wrote: > Greg, > > Answering this message with the reply partially reorganized. > > > On Sun, Feb 17, 2019 at 04:40:31PM -0800, Greg Mirsky wrote: > > On Sat, Feb 16, 2019 at 10:46 AM Jeffrey Haas <jh...@pfrc.org> wrote: > > > > 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. > > > > > GIM2>> RFC 5884 leaves the Demand mode outside its scope. RFC 5884 does > not > > discuss how the Demand mode may be used in BFD over MPLS LSPs. > > Even thought the RFC says demand mode is out of scope, 5880 is clear about > how demand mode works. I'm not seeing anything in your draft that alters > that procedure. > > Basically, no draft is needed for a one-liner: you can use demand mode. > > > GIM2>> Is the fact that the patent application is not yet published the > > sole foundation for your objection to adopting this draft as Chair of BFD > > WG or as an individual contributor? Is there any IETF document that > > requires that the patent must be published before the draft can be > adopted > > or published as RFC? > > The sole reason for mentioning this is demand mode is clear. BFD over mpls > is clear. You're asserting some sort of IPR on things that are already > clear. So, either your draft itself is unclear on some new thing you're > asserting IPR on, or you're not actually covering something new. That's > it. > > -- Jeff >
