I support all 3 documents. On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 8:45 PM Jeffrey Haas <jh...@pfrc.org> wrote:
> Working Group, > > As we discussed in Montreal at IETF-105, the last hang up on progressing > the > authentication documents (thread copied below) was concerns on the IPR > against them. > > The holder of the IPR believes their discloures are consistent with prior > IPR posted against the BFD suite of published RFCs.o > > We are thus proceeding with the Working Group Last Call for these > documents. > You are encouraged to provide technical feedback for the contents of the > documents, which addresses providing stronger authentication on the BFD > protocol. > > Please indicate whether you believe these documents should be advanced to > the IESG for publication as RFCs. > > -- Jeff and Reshad > > > On Tue, Jul 02, 2019 at 02:37:15PM -0400, Jeffrey Haas wrote: > > Working Group, > > > > A followup on this item. > > > > Currently, the status is identical to that which was last posted. Mahesh > > did make contact with Ciena IPR holders regarding the state of the > license. > > It is their belief that their disclosure is consistent with similar IPR > > filed against BFD. Citing two similar ones: > > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/516/ > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1419/ > > > > It also appears to be their belief that the current wording doesn't > require > > that a license fee is due. However, this is private commentary. > > > > At this point, my recommendation to the working group is we decide if > we'll > > proceed with the publication process. Let's use this time prior to IETF > 105 > > to discuss any pending issues on these documents. > > > > -- Jeff > > > > On Sat, Feb 16, 2019 at 12:07:40PM -0500, Jeffrey Haas wrote: > > > Working Group, > > > > > > On March 28, 2018, we started Working Group Last Call on the following > document > > > bundle: > > > > > > draft-ietf-bfd-secure-sequence-numbers > > > draft-ietf-bfd-optimizing-authentication > > > draft-ietf-bfd-stability > > > > > > The same day, Mahesh Jethanandani acknowledged there was pending IPR > > > declarations against these drafts. An IPR declaration was finally > posted on > > > November 1, 2018. In particular, it notes a patent. The licenseing is > > > RAND. > > > > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/3328/ > > > > > > In the time since the WGLC was requested, there were a number of > technical > > > comments made on these drafts. It's my belief that all substantial > > > technical comments had been addressed in the last posted version of > these > > > documents. Note that there was one lingering comment about Yang > > > considerations for the BFD module with regard to enabling this > optimized > > > authentication mode which can be dealt with separably. > > > > > > The chairs did not carry out a further consensus call to ensure that > there > > > are no further outstanding technical issues. > > > > > > On November 21, Greg Mirsky indicated an objection to progressing the > > > document due to late disclosure. > > > > > > > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/u8rvWwvDWRKI3jseGHecAB9WtDo > > > > > > Since we are a little over a month prior to the upcoming IETF 104, this > > > seems a good time to try to decide how the Working Group shall finish > this > > > work. Since we are meeting in Prague, this may progress to microphone > > > conversation. > > > > > > For the moment, the chairs' perceived status of the documents are: > > > - No pending technical issues with the documents with one known issue. > > > - Concerns over late disclosure of IPR. > > > - No solid consensus from the Working Group that we're ready to > proceed. > > > This part may be covered by a future consensus call, but let's hear > list > > > discussion first. > > > > > > -- Jeff > >
