Hi Reshad, I am concerned that the updated #2 correctly reflects my position regarding IPR Disclosure and stretches the boundary of what is discussed in relation to IPR at IETF too far. To clarify, my opposition is motivated by the FRAND licensing terms. I would appreciate it if Shepherd's write-up noted that. Secondly, it seems like the following sentence:
However the authors have expressed that since the patent as filed, the document has diverged from what was filed can be interpreted that the authors state that the IPR is not applicable to the mechanism described in the current version of the draft. AFAIK, at IETF, we avoid discussing the applicability of the IPR. Regards, Greg On Thu, May 22, 2025 at 1:16 PM Reshad Rahman <reshad= [email protected]> wrote: > 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 > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/3328/> still relevant/applicable to > draft-ietf-bfd-optimizing-authentication? > > > Regards, > Reshad. > > > > > > Mahesh Jethanandani > [email protected] > > > > > > Mahesh Jethanandani > [email protected] > > > > > > >
