Greg, Section 4 (of version -04) only deals with p2mp BFD and section 3 provides a unicast solution.
If your employer can issue an appropriate clarification that section 3 is not covered, it's possible the draft might be able to proceed. Procedures in section 4 can always be covered in a different document. (For the WGs) It's worth noting that previously both of these solutions lived in separate documents prior to merge since they covered related solution spaces. The authors merged the proposals at the request of the impacted working groups. -- Jeff > On Oct 27, 2016, at 2:25 PM, Greg Mirsky <[email protected]> wrote: > > Dear All, > to the best of my knowledge and understanding the disclosed IPR may be > relevant only to Section 4. > > Regards, > Greg > > On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 7:20 AM, Adrian Farrel <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > It might (or might not :-) help if I give some clarification of my position > on this draft. > > [I'm not trying to tell the chairs how to do their job!] > > > > We are not in a position at the moment to make our own individual assessments > of whether or how the disclosed IPR covers the draft. This is because we > cannot yet see the content of the IPR filed in the disclosed application. > That means we can take one of two approaches: > > > > 1. Assume that the IPR covers a substantial portion of the draft > > 2. Wait and see > > > > In the first case we have to decide whether we want to go ahead with this > work on that assumption and in the knowledge of the licensing terms. The > alternatives are: > > a. Abandon the work > > b. Re-invent the solution to avoid the IPR (which necessarily involves > waiting until we can read it) > > c. Carry on regardless deciding that we are willing to live with the > disclosure > > > > In the second case we would delay progression until we can see the IPR and > decide what to do. The alternative would then be exactly the same a, b, and c > as above. > > > > It might be pragmatic to continue to work on the current draft. That work > could happen without adoption (lack of adoption is not reason not to work on > the draft, and the unadopted draft can still be "under the care of the WG") > or could include adoption. If the draft is adopted, however, I would be very > wary of the implied momentum: that is, when the WG has been working on the > draft for a while it must not be taken to imply that any consensus was > reached with respect to the IPR and it must be understood that the discussion > was deferred not concluded. Future arguments that "we have invested so much > time and effort" will not carry water! > > > > All that considered, I would be OK to see work continue on the document > pending availability of the IPR in the hope that when we can see the IPR we > will attempt to find a solution that avoids the IPR. > > > > Cheers, > > Adrian > > > > > > From: rtgwg [mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>] > On Behalf Of Chris Bowers > Sent: 20 October 2016 16:11 > To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> > Subject: RE: WG adoption poll on draft-nitish-vrrp-bfd-04 > > > > RTGWG, > > > > At this point, I don’t think that there is a consensus for the working group > to adopt this draft > > without more discussion of the issue raised by Loa Andersson and Adrian > Farrel in the > > following two emails. > > > > https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtgwg/current/msg05712.html > <https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtgwg/current/msg05712.html> > https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtgwg/current/msg05718.html > <https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtgwg/current/msg05718.html> > > > The main objection raised in these two emails is that the working group > should work on > > solutions that are either unencumbered by IPR or that are available on > free-to-implementers > > terms. Loa and Adrian also point out that the current lack of visibility to > the patent > > application covered by the IPR disclosure for this draft means that it is > currently not possible to > > evaluate this situation with respect to this draft. > > > > The reason for the IPR disclosure process is to allow working groups to take > into consideration > > the potential licensing of IPR when evaluating alternative technical > solutions. At this point, > > adopting draft-nitish-vrrp-bfd-04 as the basis for work on standardizing the > use of VRRP > > with BFD without more discussion of this issue would imply that there is > consensus that > > the working group should not take potential licensing of IPR into account for > this work. > > I don’t think there is currently consensus for this. > > > > I encourage further discussion of this issue. I think that there may be the > potential to > > reach a consensus if the working group can come to an explicit agreement > about whether > > or not potential licensing of IPR should be taken into account when > evaluating alternative > > technologies for this work. > > > > Chris > > > > _____________________________________________ > From: Chris Bowers > Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2016 10:44 AM > To: '[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>' <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>>; [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Subject: WG adoption poll on draft-nitish-vrrp-bfd-04 > > > > > > RTGWG, > > > > This email starts a two week poll to gauge consensus on adopting > draft-nitish-vrrp-bfd-04 > > as an RTGWG working group document. > > > > The BFD working group is also copied on this adoption poll. We encourage > participants in > > BFD working group to provide their input on the adoption poll. And should > this document > > be adopted as an RTGWG document, we would plan to copy the BFD WG on emails > > related to this document to benefit from the BFD expertise in that WG in the > development > > of this document. > > > > Please send your comments to the RTGWG mailing list ([email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>) indicating support > > or opposition to the adoption of this document, along with the reasoning for > that support > > or opposition. > > > > If you are listed as a document author or contributor, please respond to this > email stating > > whether or not you are aware of any relevant IPR. The response needs to be > sent to the > > RTGWG mailing list. The document will not advance to the next stage until a > response has > > been received from each author and each individual that has contributed to > the document. > > > > At this point, the document has the following IPR disclosure associated with > it. > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2739/ > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2739/> > > > This adoption poll will end on Friday October 14th. > > > > Thanks, > > Chris and Jeff > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > rtgwg mailing list > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg > <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg> > > > _______________________________________________ > rtgwg mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
_______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
