Hi,
Ketan, I have updated the shepherd writeup, see
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bfd-optimizing-authentication/shepherdwriteup/
Mahesh, ack on what you state below but I didn't understand the statement "Just
one correction. There is an IPR that was declared and filed for the
optimizing-authentication draft back in 2018.". Is there somewhere in the
writeup that indicates that there is no IPR (#2 clearly mentions controversy
because of IPR disclosure)? Or is it because I didn't explicitly state that
there is an IPR declaration?
Regards,Reshad.
On Friday, May 9, 2025 at 12:32:52 AM EDT, Ketan Talaulikar
<[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Mahesh,
Thanks for that clarification.
I would request Reshad to add the link to this thread and update the context
for the IPR issue that was raised so as it give a better picture to the IESG
when doing its evaluation.
There is no rush since I still need to do the AD review.
Thanks,Ketan
On Fri, May 9, 2025 at 12:30 AM Mahesh Jethanandani <[email protected]>
wrote:
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/
On Thu, May 8, 2025 at 9:53 AM Mahesh Jethanandani <[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]> 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]>
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]> 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]> 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-optimizing-authentication/
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 still relevant/applicable to draft-ietf-bfd-optimizing-authentication?
Regards,Reshad.
Mahesh [email protected]
Mahesh [email protected]
