Hi Ketan,

The patent that was granted was for the idea in the optimizing authentication 
draft. The initial draft proposed having strong authentication for state 
transitions that affected a BFD session but switching to “NULL” auth once the 
BFD session was marked Up, with occasional strong authentication in the Up 
state to mitigate any man-in-the-middle attack. The latest version kept the 
strong authentication concept for state transitions but did away with “NULL” 
auth option. Instead, it relies on ISAAC+ to provide a less computationally 
intensive way to validate the sequence numbers being carried in the packet in 
Up state.

I am not a lawyer, but the new method described in the draft seems sufficiently 
different from what the patent claimed.

I know Reshad was going on vacation, so I will not be surprised if you do not 
hear from him for the next 12 days.

Cheers.

> On May 8, 2025, at 1:39 AM, Ketan Talaulikar <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Mahesh,
> 
> Thanks for your email and I would like to request further clarification from 
> you on this as you are listed as one of the inventors in the IPR that was 
> disclosed.
> 
> Is your position today that IPR declared does not apply to the latest version 
> of the draft (as it stands today)?
> 
> This may clarify the situation during further progression of this document as 
> the shepherd report does disclose a "controversy" [1] related to the IPR 
> terms on this document.
> 
> I would request the shepherding co-chair (Reshad) to update the shepherd 
> report based on your response, in case of a change in position.
> 
> Thanks,
> Ketan
> 
> [1] 
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/u8rvWwvDWRKI3jseGHecAB9WtDo/ 
> <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/u8rvWwvDWRKI3jseGHecAB9WtDo/>
> On Thu, May 8, 2025 at 9:53 AM Mahesh Jethanandani <[email protected] 
> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> Hi Reshad,
> 
> Just one correction. There is an IPR that was declared and filed for the 
> optimizing-authentication draft back in 2018.  The draft now, though, 
> significantly diverges from the patent that was filed.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
>> On May 6, 2025, at 12:13 PM, Rahman <[email protected] 
>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>> 
>> The WGLC has concluded and the shepherd write ups have been updated. The 
>> documents have been pushed to the next phase.
>> 
>> It’s not over yet but thanks to everyone who has helped to get the documents 
>> past this milestone. It’s been a loooong journey and there’s more work to be 
>> done to get to the finish line.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Reshad.
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
>>> On Mar 4, 2025, at 5:27 AM, Reshad Rahman 
>>> <[email protected] 
>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> I am not aware of any IPR on these 3 documents.
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> Reshad,
>>> 
>>> On Tuesday, March 4, 2025 at 10:51:59 AM GMT+4, Reshad Rahman 
>>> <[email protected] 
>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> My IPR check request incorrectly addressed only authors. It should instead 
>>> have said (no need to re-respond if you already have):
>>> 
>>> Authors, contributors, 
>>> 
>>> Are you personally aware of any IPR that applies to any of these 3 
>>> documents?  If so, has this IPR been disclosed in
>>> compliance with IETF IPR rules?  (See RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669, and 5378 for 
>>> more details.)
>>> 
>>> Please reply to this email regardless of whether or not you are personally 
>>> aware of any relevant IPR. 
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> Reshad.
>>> 
>>> On Tuesday, June 4, 2024 at 05:30:18 AM GMT+4, Reshad Rahman 
>>> <[email protected] 
>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> BFD WG,
>>> 
>>> This email starts a 2 week Working Group Last Call for the following 3 
>>> documents, please review and provide comments by end of day on June 17th.
>>> Feedback such as "I believe the document is ready to advance" is also 
>>> welcome.
>>> 
>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bfd-secure-sequence-numbers/ 
>>> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bfd-secure-sequence-numbers/>
>>> 
>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bfd-optimizing-authentication/ 
>>> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bfd-optimizing-authentication/>
>>> 
>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bfd-stability/ 
>>> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bfd-stability/>
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Those documents were discussed extensively a few years ago but there have 
>>> been a few changes since (e.g. use of ISAAC).
>>> 
>>> IPR check was done a few years ago but it's been a while and there has been 
>>> significant changes in the documents since then:
>>> 1- Authors, please respond whether you are aware of any undisclosed IPR.
>>> 2- Mahesh, Ankur and Ashesh, is this IPR 
>>> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/3328/> still relevant/applicable to 
>>> draft-ietf-bfd-optimizing-authentication?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> Reshad.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
> 
> Mahesh Jethanandani
> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
> 
> 
> 


Mahesh Jethanandani
[email protected]






Reply via email to