Subject: Brian Haberman's No Objection on draft-ietf-bfd-rfc5884-clarifications-03: (with COMMENT)

From: "Brian Haberman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 07:38:27 -0700

Brian Haberman has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-bfd-rfc5884-clarifications-03: No Objection

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 https://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:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bfd-rfc5884-clarifications/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Just a question on this draft... Given its status as clarifying (and
updating) RFC 5884, does it also inherit any of the IPR claims levied
against RFC 5884?

---

From: Jeffrey Haas <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 10:45:23 -0400

All existing IPR stands.  No new IPR is introduced.

-- Jeff

---

From: Brian Haberman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 10:53:11 -0400

Hi Jeff,
     Thanks for the speedy response...

> All existing IPR stands.  No new IPR is introduced.

Maybe my parser is broken, but does this mean:

1. None of the IPR disclosures filed against 5884 apply to this draft

2. All/some of the IPR disclosures filed against 5884 apply, but
disclosures have not (will not?) be filed against this draft?

Regards,
Brian

---

From: Jeffrey Haas <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 11:17:04 -0400

> disclosures have not (will not?) be filed against this draft?

Since this document only clarifies 5884, the IPR against 5884 is still
applicable.  The clarifications do not introduce any new IPR against the
material covered in 5884.

A bit more flippantly, just because we publish a clarification document with
no additional IPR doesn't mean we think we're getting rid of the existing
IPR considerations. :-)

-- Jeff

---

From: Brian Haberman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 11:26:31 -0400

> material covered in 5884.

I wasn't expecting new IPR, I was wondering if any of the old IPR may
have gone away.  I know, wishful thinking.

> no additional IPR doesn't mean we think we're getting rid of the existing

I have seen it happen before though and was wondering.

Thanks for the quick follow-up!

Brian