Subject: [dnssd] Pete Resnick's Discuss on draft-ietf-dnssd-requirements-05: (with DISCUSS)

From: "Pete Resnick" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 19:07:08 -0700

Pete Resnick has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dnssd-requirements-05: Discuss

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnssd-requirements/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Procedural issue - The shepherd writeup says:

   (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
   disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP
   78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why?

   The draft includes the boilerplate confirming that the document "is
   submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP
   79". No disclosures have been made, nor are expected to be made in an
   Informational requirements draft.

   (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
   If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
   disclosures.

   No.

There was an IPR disclosure made on the earlier pre-WG version of this
document back in 2013. Were the authors asked whether that disclosure
also applies to this version of the document? Is the WG aware of this
disclosure? Did the WG discuss the disclosure? Were any concerns raised?

Section 5:

OLD
   Devices on different links may have the same mDNS name (perhaps due
   to vendor defaults), because link-local mDNS names are only
   guaranteed to be unique on a per-link basis.  Also, even devices that
   are on the same link may have similar-looking names, such as one
   device with the name "Bill" and another device using the similar-
   looking name "Bi11" (using the digit "1" in place of the letter "l").
   This may lead to a local label disambiguation problem between
   presented results.
   
   SSD should support rich internationalized labels within Service
   Instance Names, as DNS-SD/mDNS does today.  SSD must not negatively
   impact the global DNS namespace or infrastructure.

The part about name collisions is fine, and should be said. The part
about disambiguating similar characters is a rat's nest I really think
you need to avoid. We can discuss this further, but the i18n community is
dealing with this issue right now and it's a mess you really don't want
to get into. I think you should simply stick to something like this:

NEW
   Devices on different links may have the same mDNS name (perhaps due
   to vendor defaults), because link-local mDNS names are only
   guaranteed to be unique on a per-link basis. SSD needs to deal with
   name collisions beyond local link considerations.
   
   SSD should support rich internationalized labels within Service
   Instance Names, as DNS-SD/mDNS does today and should look to work in
   using internationalize strings in application protocols
   [soon-to-be-RFC-draft-ietf-precis-framework].  SSD must not
   negatively impact the global DNS namespace or infrastructure.

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 22:19:56 -0400

>   Informational requirements draft.

Argh, sorry, I didn't catch that.   Tim, please ask the authors to say explicitly whether they are aware of any additional IPR.   The boilerplate isn't adequate, because it is added by a tool, and is not present in the XML source.

> disclosure? Did the WG discuss the disclosure? Were any concerns raised?

Hm.   This has certainly come up in meetings.   I think the only time it was mentioned on the mailing list was prior to the BoF that produced dnssd.   The disclosure has been in the tracker all along.   Are you suggesting that the working group may have agreed to advance the document without being aware of this, despite the IPR having been present in the tracker?

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 22:19:56 -0400

---

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 19:26:20 -0700

On 3/11/15 7:19 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
> On Mar 11, 2015, at 10:07 PM, Pete Resnick<[email-masked]>  wrote:
>    

As we've said in the past, it's fine if the relationship between a 
shepherd and the authors is such that the shepherd can confidently say, 
"Yeah, these folks did the right thing." But in this case, there's this 
IPR declaration, and the answer to the next question about whether there 
were any IPR declarations was "No". So I'd like to be sure that due 
diligence was done here.

> Hm.   This has certainly come up in meetings.   I think the only time it was mentioned on the mailing list was prior to the BoF that produced dnssd.   The disclosure has been in the tracker all alo…

If it's come up in meetings, that's enough to convince me that the WG 
was aware of this. It was the existence of it in the tracker and the 
shepherd's comment that there was no related IPR that caused me to ask 
what was going on here.

As far as I'm concerned, I've made you (Ted) aware of this issue and I'm 
happy to clear this part of the DISCUSS and let you contend with it. (Or 
I can track it; whichever works for you.)

pr

-- 
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478

---

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 19:26:20 -0700

pr

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 22:30:21 -0400

On Mar 11, 2015, at 10:26 PM, Pete Resnick <[email-masked]> wrote:
> As far as I'm concerned, I've made you (Ted) aware of this issue and I'm happy to clear this part of the DISCUSS and let you contend with it. (Or I can track it; whichever works for you.)

Let's see what Tim says.

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 22:30:21 -0400

Let's see what Tim says.

---

From: Tim Chown <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2015 13:00:15 +0000

Hi,

> On 12 Mar 2015, at 02:30, Ted Lemon <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

Apologies, I overlooked referring to this in the shepherding document for the requirements draft, as I had thought the disclosure was intended to be on the hybrid solution draft, i.e. on the document proposing a solution for scalable DNS-based SD, as opposed to on the document stating the problem.

Pete is absolutely right that we should review and check this.

Looking at the disclosures, I see that https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2114/ <https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2114/> (on the pre-WG adoption requirements draft) points to an updated disclosure https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2119/ <https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2119/> on the hybrid draft (again, pre WG-adoption).

We should probably report this from the chair’s introduction during dnssd in Dallas, and field any questions if they arise. As Ted says, it has been discussed before. I can add a note to the shepherd document.

Tim

---

From: Tim Chown <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2015 13:00:15 +0000

Hi,

Tim

---

From: Tim Chown <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2015 13:04:17 +0000

Kerry, Stuart, Marc, Daniel,

Please can you confirm whether there is any additional IPR on the requirements draft as per Ted’s request below?

As per my other email just now, I understood that the IPR statement on the requirements draft (i.e.  https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2114/ <https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2114/>) had intended to be on the hybrid solution draft (i.e. https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2119/ <https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2119/> ).

Apologies for this extra late (hopefully small) hurdle.

Thanks,
Tim 

> On 12 Mar 2015, at 02:19, Ted Lemon <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dnssd mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnssd

---

From: Daniel Migault <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2015 13:16:56 +0000

Hi,

I am not aware of any additional IPR.

BR
Daniel

From: Tim Chown [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2015 9:04 AM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; Ted Lemon
Subject: Further IPR disclosures on draft-ietf-dnssd-requirements-05 ?

As per my other email just now, I understood that the IPR statement on the requirements draft (i.e.  https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2114/) had intended to be on the hybrid solution draft (i.e. https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2119/ ).

Thanks,
Tim

On 12 Mar 2015, at 02:19, Ted Lemon <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:

On Mar 11, 2015, at 10:07 PM, Pete Resnick <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:

_______________________________________________
dnssd mailing list
[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnssd

---

From: Marc Blanchet <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2015 09:27:18 -0400

Le 2015-03-12 09:04, Tim Chown a écrit :
> Please can you confirm whether there is any additional IPR on the 
> requirements draft as per Ted’s request below?

not on my side. Marc.

>
> As per my other email just now, I understood that the IPR statement on 
> the requirements draft (i.e. 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2114/) had intended to be on the 
> hybrid solution draft (i.e. https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2119/ ).
>
>> On Mar 11, 2015, at 10:07 PM, Pete Resnick <[email-masked] 
>> <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
>> Argh, sorry, I didn't catch that.   Tim, please ask the authors to 
>> say explicitly whether they are aware of any additional IPR.   The 
>> boilerplate isn't adequate, because it is added by a tool, and is not 
>> present in the XML source.
>>
>> Hm.   This has certainly come up in meetings.   I think the only time 
>> it was mentioned on the mailing list was prior to the BoF that 
>> produced dnssd.   The disclosure has been in the tracker all along. 
>>   Are you suggesting that the working group may have agreed to 
>> advance the document without being aware of this, despite the IPR 
>> having been present in the tracker?
>>
>> [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>

---

From: "Lynn, Kerry E" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2015 10:28:42 -0400

Tim,

The draft contains no IPR that I'm aware of.  I'm not sure I understand
how an informational I-D addressing requirements could even contain
IPR.

Regards, Kerry

From: Tim Chown <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Date: Thursday, March 12, 2015 at 9:04 AM
To: "[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>" <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Cc: "[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>" <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>, Ted Lemon <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Subject: Further IPR disclosures on draft-ietf-dnssd-requirements-05 ?

Thanks,
Tim

---

From: Marc Blanchet <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2015 11:06:20 -0400

> how an informational I-D addressing requirements could even contain
my take too. Not sure there is any IPR that could be claimed on this 
document. But, I guess it is safer and appropriate for our process to 
double check. I guess we are now just waiting for Stuart to confirm.

Marc.
>
> Regards, Kerry
>
> From: Tim Chown <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>>
> To: "[email-masked] 
> <mailto:[email-masked]>" 
> <[email-masked] 
> <mailto:[email-masked]>>
> Cc: "[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>" 
> <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>>, Ted Lemon 
> <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>>

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2015 11:57:48 -0400

On Mar 12, 2015, at 11:06 AM, Marc Blanchet <[email-masked]> wrote:
> my take too. Not sure there is any IPR that could be claimed on this document. But, I guess it is safer and appropriate for our process to double check. I guess we are now just waiting for Stuart to confirm.

IPR can be claimed on _any_ document by submitting an IPR disclosure.   We (the IETF) do not judge the validity of IPR disclosures--we simply track them and decide whether they affect our willingness to publish a document.

---

From: Tim Chown <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2015 16:50:44 +0000

> On 12 Mar 2015, at 15:57, Ted Lemon <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

Right. But I believe in this case the disclosure was (accidentally) put on the wrong draft, hence the update / re-pointer to the hybrid draft.

Tim

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2015 13:02:07 -0400

> Right. But I believe in this case the disclosure was (accidentally) put on the wrong draft, hence the update / re-pointer to the hybrid draft.

Ah.   That's unfortunate.

---

From: Stuart Cheshire <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2015 20:47:09 -0700

Marc and Helene,

Can you formally retract Apple’s erroneous IPR disclosure <https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2114/>?

It’s preventing publication of <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dnssd-requirements-05>

After all the work we did to get though Working Group adoption, Working Group Last Call, and IETF Last Call, this is an unfortunate last-minute road block.

I have stated that I am not aware of any IPR relating to this document, and the existence of an IPR disclosure to the contrary is causing some raised eyebrows.

Can we get this mistake cleared up?

Stuart Cheshire

> On 12 Mar, 2015, at 06:04, Tim Chown <[email-masked]> wrote:
>

---

From: Tim Chown <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2015 20:37:29 +0000

Tim

> IPR can be claimed on _any_ document by submitting an IPR disclosure.   We (the IETF) do not judge the validity of IPR disclosures--we simply track them and decide whether they affect our willingne…

Fair point. 

I think we also now have statements from all authors that there are no additional IPR claims on this doc.

Tim