I support all three documents. On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 9:22 AM Ashesh Mishra <mishra.ash...@outlook.com> wrote:
> As author, I support all three drafts. > > On Sep 10, 2019, at 7:13 PM, Manav Bhatia <manavbha...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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 >> >>
