From nobody Sun Oct 9 05:55:30 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06C20129478; Sun, 9 Oct 2016 05:55:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.896 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-2.996] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wzGHksADLIvH; Sun, 9 Oct 2016 05:55:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pipi.pi.nu (pipi.pi.nu [83.168.239.141]) (using TLSv1.1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EA7C312941C; Sun, 9 Oct 2016 05:55:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.3] (unknown [122.53.33.123]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: loa@pi.nu) by pipi.pi.nu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B9B2918013E2; Sun, 9 Oct 2016 14:55:17 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Re: WG adoption poll on draft-nitish-vrrp-bfd-04 To: rtg-bfd@ietf.org, "rtgwg@ietf.org" , rtgwg-chairs@ietf.org, "bfd-chairs@ietf.org" , "mpls-chairs@ietf.org" References: From: Loa Andersson Message-ID: <96b62e00-2179-d27f-a88b-8d938bbc2f4d@pi.nu> Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2016 20:55:12 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: "RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 09 Oct 2016 12:55:25 -0000 Folks, When the mpls wg last called draft-ietf-mpls-bfd-directed we received the following comment related the IPRs disclosed for this document: "Ross, thanks for this notice. I need to read the IPR referenced by the disclosure, but pending that, I do not support this document going forward in its current state. I think it is important for the working group to seek to develop solutions that either completely unencumbered by IPR or that is available on free-to-implementers terms. It may turn out that this is not possible with the disclosed IPR, but I think the WG should try. For the avoidance of doubt: I am not making any comment on the IPR-holder's rights to impose whatever license they want, and I am not asking them to vary their terms. I do note that it would be convenient if the IPR holder updated the disclosure to show that it applies to the current WG draft. Thanks, Adrian" The document has since then been blocked by failure to reach a consensus on the IPR. In the mean time there has also been new technical comments that the authors tried to address. The Patent application referred to in the disclosure is: Appl no: US Serial No.: 14/512,259 Appl date: October 13, 2014 Later updated to: Patent, Serial, Publication, Registration, or Application/File number(s) US Serial No: 14/846580, filed Sept 4, 2015 This document has a very similar (not to say identical) IPR disclosure referencing: Appl.No: US Serial No: 14/512.259 Appl.date: October 13, 2014 (for some reason this has not been updated. I note the same thing as Adrian, it would be convenient if the IPR holder updated the disclosure to show that it applies to the current WG draft(s). For the time being and for the very same reason that apply to the mpls wg document I do not support this document being adopted as a wg doc, unless it is clearly stated that the goal is to create a standard that is that the working group to seek to develop a solution that either is completely unencumbered by IPR or that is available on free-to- implement terms. /Loa On 29/09/2016 23:44, Chris Bowers wrote: > 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 (_rtgwg@ietf.org_ > ) 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/_ > > This adoption poll will end on Friday October 14^th . > > Thanks, > Chris and Jeff > > -- Loa Andersson email: loa@mail01.huawei.com Senior MPLS Expert loa@pi.nu Huawei Technologies (consultant) phone: +46 739 81 21 64 From nobody Tue Oct 11 07:48:43 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31D241295B4; Tue, 11 Oct 2016 07:48:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -17.516 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-17.516 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-2.996, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KlDLMwNxfLcH; Tue, 11 Oct 2016 07:48:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.86.75]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8BA041200DF; Tue, 11 Oct 2016 07:48:38 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=8085; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1476197318; x=1477406918; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: mime-version; bh=oy0yePwjEah64EGCpnUMNHpiwIqMlUefgLmirPc7vR8=; b=RjM1AayhM2Xs7KFShHQVfAZKIwJF26SVCj4fBkSwYlIA1OLT/WAsKPUG bT6uv9h7LOVK+9kfU/jgb1si0oHoKCNZ4CQsPUjNO1ylm08N8hOAjDyc3 0NbiUVBBnD+ivGQMReRtWKxiiACwHE4J4XHipQ5Y6PQK/cTxDkO8WkxVR 8=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0DRAwBF+/xX/4oNJK1cGgEBAQECAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QgBAQEBgwc1AQEBAQEdV3wHhCSJCJcEjyCFFIILIoV+AhqBazgUAQIBAQEBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BXieEYQEBAQQjCj4DBhUCAQgOAwMBAigDAgICMBQJCAEBBAESiFAOtW2NDQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEaBYsShBkRATyCZIJbBZQohVoBhiaJVoFuhGeJIIx?= =?us-ascii?q?5g34BHjZNhGByhgKBIIEAAQEB?= X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.31,329,1473120000"; d="scan'208,217";a="158554074" Received: from alln-core-5.cisco.com ([173.36.13.138]) by rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 11 Oct 2016 14:48:24 +0000 Received: from XCH-RTP-014.cisco.com (xch-rtp-014.cisco.com [64.101.220.154]) by alln-core-5.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u9BEmOqT014446 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 11 Oct 2016 14:48:24 GMT Received: from xch-rtp-015.cisco.com (64.101.220.155) by XCH-RTP-014.cisco.com (64.101.220.154) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Tue, 11 Oct 2016 10:48:23 -0400 Received: from xch-rtp-015.cisco.com ([64.101.220.155]) by XCH-RTP-015.cisco.com ([64.101.220.155]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Tue, 11 Oct 2016 10:48:23 -0400 From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" To: Chris Bowers , "rtgwg@ietf.org" , "rtg-bfd@ietf.org" Subject: Re: WG adoption poll on draft-nitish-vrrp-bfd-04 Thread-Topic: WG adoption poll on draft-nitish-vrrp-bfd-04 Thread-Index: AdIaZGPlJxb+ITrzQuavzBeZL6nhIQJah0AA Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2016 14:48:23 +0000 Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1 x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted x-originating-ip: [10.116.152.200] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_D42273C88233Eaceeciscocom_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: "RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2016 14:48:40 -0000 --_000_D42273C88233Eaceeciscocom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 V2hpbGUgSSBvcmlnaW5hbGx5IGRpZG7igJl0IHRoaW5rIHRoaXMgd2FzIG5lY2Vzc2FyeSwgSSBj YW4gc2VlIHRoZSB1c2UgY2FzZSBhbmQgc3VwcG9ydCBSVEcgV0cgYWRvcHRpb24uDQpUaGFua3Ms DQpBY2VlDQoNCkZyb206IHJ0Z3dnIDxydGd3Zy1ib3VuY2VzQGlldGYub3JnPG1haWx0bzpydGd3 Zy1ib3VuY2VzQGlldGYub3JnPj4gb24gYmVoYWxmIG9mIENocmlzIEJvd2VycyA8Y2Jvd2Vyc0Bq dW5pcGVyLm5ldDxtYWlsdG86Y2Jvd2Vyc0BqdW5pcGVyLm5ldD4+DQpEYXRlOiBUaHVyc2RheSwg U2VwdGVtYmVyIDI5LCAyMDE2IGF0IDExOjQ0IEFNDQpUbzogUm91dGluZyBXRyA8cnRnd2dAaWV0 Zi5vcmc8bWFpbHRvOnJ0Z3dnQGlldGYub3JnPj4sICJydGctYmZkQGlldGYub3JnPG1haWx0bzpy dGctYmZkQGlldGYub3JnPiIgPHJ0Zy1iZmRAaWV0Zi5vcmc8bWFpbHRvOnJ0Zy1iZmRAaWV0Zi5v cmc+Pg0KU3ViamVjdDogV0cgYWRvcHRpb24gcG9sbCBvbiBkcmFmdC1uaXRpc2gtdnJycC1iZmQt MDQNCg0KUlRHV0csDQoNClRoaXMgZW1haWwgc3RhcnRzIGEgdHdvIHdlZWsgcG9sbCB0byBnYXVn ZSBjb25zZW5zdXMgb24gYWRvcHRpbmcgZHJhZnQtbml0aXNoLXZycnAtYmZkLTA0DQphcyBhbiBS VEdXRyB3b3JraW5nIGdyb3VwIGRvY3VtZW50Lg0KDQpUaGUgQkZEIHdvcmtpbmcgZ3JvdXAgaXMg YWxzbyBjb3BpZWQgb24gdGhpcyBhZG9wdGlvbiBwb2xsLiAgV2UgZW5jb3VyYWdlIHBhcnRpY2lw YW50cyBpbg0KQkZEIHdvcmtpbmcgZ3JvdXAgdG8gcHJvdmlkZSB0aGVpciBpbnB1dCBvbiB0aGUg YWRvcHRpb24gcG9sbC4gIEFuZCBzaG91bGQgdGhpcyBkb2N1bWVudA0KYmUgYWRvcHRlZCBhcyBh biBSVEdXRyBkb2N1bWVudCwgd2Ugd291bGQgcGxhbiB0byBjb3B5IHRoZSBCRkQgV0cgb24gZW1h aWxzDQpyZWxhdGVkIHRvIHRoaXMgZG9jdW1lbnQgdG8gYmVuZWZpdCBmcm9tIHRoZSBCRkQgZXhw ZXJ0aXNlIGluIHRoYXQgV0cgaW4gdGhlIGRldmVsb3BtZW50DQpvZiB0aGlzIGRvY3VtZW50Lg0K DQpQbGVhc2Ugc2VuZCB5b3VyIGNvbW1lbnRzIHRvIHRoZSBSVEdXRyBtYWlsaW5nIGxpc3QgKHJ0 Z3dnQGlldGYub3JnPG1haWx0bzpydGd3Z0BpZXRmLm9yZz4pIGluZGljYXRpbmcgc3VwcG9ydA0K b3Igb3Bwb3NpdGlvbiB0byB0aGUgYWRvcHRpb24gb2YgdGhpcyBkb2N1bWVudCwgYWxvbmcgd2l0 aCB0aGUgcmVhc29uaW5nIGZvciB0aGF0IHN1cHBvcnQNCm9yIG9wcG9zaXRpb24uDQoNCklmIHlv dSBhcmUgbGlzdGVkIGFzIGEgZG9jdW1lbnQgYXV0aG9yIG9yIGNvbnRyaWJ1dG9yLCBwbGVhc2Ug cmVzcG9uZCB0byB0aGlzIGVtYWlsIHN0YXRpbmcNCndoZXRoZXIgb3Igbm90IHlvdSBhcmUgYXdh cmUgb2YgYW55IHJlbGV2YW50IElQUi4gICBUaGUgcmVzcG9uc2UgbmVlZHMgdG8gYmUgc2VudCB0 byB0aGUNClJUR1dHIG1haWxpbmcgbGlzdC4gVGhlIGRvY3VtZW50IHdpbGwgbm90IGFkdmFuY2Ug dG8gdGhlIG5leHQgc3RhZ2UgdW50aWwgYSByZXNwb25zZSBoYXMNCmJlZW4gcmVjZWl2ZWQgZnJv bSBlYWNoIGF1dGhvciBhbmQgZWFjaCBpbmRpdmlkdWFsIHRoYXQgaGFzIGNvbnRyaWJ1dGVkIHRv IHRoZSBkb2N1bWVudC4NCg0KQXQgdGhpcyBwb2ludCwgdGhlIGRvY3VtZW50IGhhcyB0aGUgZm9s bG93aW5nIElQUiBkaXNjbG9zdXJlIGFzc29jaWF0ZWQgd2l0aCBpdC4NCmh0dHBzOi8vZGF0YXRy YWNrZXIuaWV0Zi5vcmcvaXByLzI3MzkvDQoNClRoaXMgYWRvcHRpb24gcG9sbCB3aWxsIGVuZCBv biBGcmlkYXkgT2N0b2JlciAxNHRoLg0KDQpUaGFua3MsDQpDaHJpcyBhbmQgSmVmZg0KDQoNCg== --_000_D42273C88233Eaceeciscocom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-ID: <8AEC3344B64D8744B8593BB39E13A559@emea.cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 PGh0bWw+DQo8aGVhZD4NCjxtZXRhIGh0dHAtZXF1aXY9IkNvbnRlbnQtVHlwZSIgY29udGVudD0i dGV4dC9odG1sOyBjaGFyc2V0PXV0Zi04Ij4NCjwvaGVhZD4NCjxib2R5IHN0eWxlPSJ3b3JkLXdy YXA6IGJyZWFrLXdvcmQ7IC13ZWJraXQtbmJzcC1tb2RlOiBzcGFjZTsgLXdlYmtpdC1saW5lLWJy ZWFrOiBhZnRlci13aGl0ZS1zcGFjZTsgY29sb3I6IHJnYigwLCAwLCAwKTsgZm9udC1zaXplOiAx NHB4OyBmb250LWZhbWlseTogQ2FsaWJyaSwgc2Fucy1zZXJpZjsiPg0KPGRpdj5XaGlsZSBJIG9y aWdpbmFsbHkgZGlkbuKAmXQgdGhpbmsgdGhpcyB3YXMgbmVjZXNzYXJ5LCBJIGNhbiBzZWUgdGhl IHVzZSBjYXNlIGFuZCBzdXBwb3J0IFJURyBXRyBhZG9wdGlvbi4mbmJzcDs8L2Rpdj4NCjxkaXY+ VGhhbmtzLDwvZGl2Pg0KPGRpdj5BY2VlJm5ic3A7PC9kaXY+DQo8ZGl2Pjxicj4NCjwvZGl2Pg0K PHNwYW4gaWQ9Ik9MS19TUkNfQk9EWV9TRUNUSU9OIj4NCjxkaXYgc3R5bGU9ImZvbnQtZmFtaWx5 OkNhbGlicmk7IGZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMXB0OyB0ZXh0LWFsaWduOmxlZnQ7IGNvbG9yOmJsYWNrOyBC T1JERVItQk9UVE9NOiBtZWRpdW0gbm9uZTsgQk9SREVSLUxFRlQ6IG1lZGl1bSBub25lOyBQQURE SU5HLUJPVFRPTTogMGluOyBQQURESU5HLUxFRlQ6IDBpbjsgUEFERElORy1SSUdIVDogMGluOyBC T1JERVItVE9QOiAjYjVjNGRmIDFwdCBzb2xpZDsgQk9SREVSLVJJR0hUOiBtZWRpdW0gbm9uZTsg UEFERElORy1UT1A6IDNwdCI+DQo8c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0iZm9udC13ZWlnaHQ6Ym9sZCI+RnJvbTog PC9zcGFuPnJ0Z3dnICZsdDs8YSBocmVmPSJtYWlsdG86cnRnd2ctYm91bmNlc0BpZXRmLm9yZyI+ cnRnd2ctYm91bmNlc0BpZXRmLm9yZzwvYT4mZ3Q7IG9uIGJlaGFsZiBvZiBDaHJpcyBCb3dlcnMg Jmx0OzxhIGhyZWY9Im1haWx0bzpjYm93ZXJzQGp1bmlwZXIubmV0Ij5jYm93ZXJzQGp1bmlwZXIu bmV0PC9hPiZndDs8YnI+DQo8c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0iZm9udC13ZWlnaHQ6Ym9sZCI+RGF0ZTogPC9z cGFuPlRodXJzZGF5LCBTZXB0ZW1iZXIgMjksIDIwMTYgYXQgMTE6NDQgQU08YnI+DQo8c3BhbiBz dHlsZT0iZm9udC13ZWlnaHQ6Ym9sZCI+VG86IDwvc3Bhbj5Sb3V0aW5nIFdHICZsdDs8YSBocmVm PSJtYWlsdG86cnRnd2dAaWV0Zi5vcmciPnJ0Z3dnQGlldGYub3JnPC9hPiZndDssICZxdW90Ozxh IGhyZWY9Im1haWx0bzpydGctYmZkQGlldGYub3JnIj5ydGctYmZkQGlldGYub3JnPC9hPiZxdW90 OyAmbHQ7PGEgaHJlZj0ibWFpbHRvOnJ0Zy1iZmRAaWV0Zi5vcmciPnJ0Zy1iZmRAaWV0Zi5vcmc8 L2E+Jmd0Ozxicj4NCjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSJmb250LXdlaWdodDpib2xkIj5TdWJqZWN0OiA8L3Nw YW4+V0cgYWRvcHRpb24gcG9sbCBvbiBkcmFmdC1uaXRpc2gtdnJycC1iZmQtMDQ8YnI+DQo8L2Rp dj4NCjxkaXY+PGJyPg0KPC9kaXY+DQo8YmxvY2txdW90ZSBpZD0iTUFDX09VVExPT0tfQVRUUklC VVRJT05fQkxPQ0tRVU9URSIgc3R5bGU9IkJPUkRFUi1MRUZUOiAjYjVjNGRmIDUgc29saWQ7IFBB RERJTkc6MCAwIDAgNTsgTUFSR0lOOjAgMCAwIDU7Ij4NCjxkaXY+DQo8bWV0YSBuYW1lPSJHZW5l cmF0b3IiIGNvbnRlbnQ9Ik1pY3Jvc29mdCBFeGNoYW5nZSBTZXJ2ZXIiPg0KPCEtLSBjb252ZXJ0 ZWQgZnJvbSBydGYgLS0+PHN0eWxlPjwhLS0gLkVtYWlsUXVvdGUgeyBtYXJnaW4tbGVmdDogMXB0 OyBwYWRkaW5nLWxlZnQ6IDRwdDsgYm9yZGVyLWxlZnQ6ICM4MDAwMDAgMnB4IHNvbGlkOyB9IC0t Pjwvc3R5bGU+DQo8ZGl2Pjxmb250IGZhY2U9IkNhbGlicmkiIHNpemU9IjIiPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxl PSJmb250LXNpemU6MTFwdDsiPg0KPGRpdj5SVEdXRyw8L2Rpdj4NCjxkaXY+Jm5ic3A7PC9kaXY+ DQo8ZGl2PlRoaXMgZW1haWwgc3RhcnRzIGEgdHdvIHdlZWsgcG9sbCB0byBnYXVnZSBjb25zZW5z dXMgb24gYWRvcHRpbmcgZHJhZnQtbml0aXNoLXZycnAtYmZkLTA0PC9kaXY+DQo8ZGl2PmFzIGFu IFJUR1dHIHdvcmtpbmcgZ3JvdXAgZG9jdW1lbnQuPC9kaXY+DQo8ZGl2PiZuYnNwOzwvZGl2Pg0K PGRpdj5UaGUgQkZEIHdvcmtpbmcgZ3JvdXAgaXMgYWxzbyBjb3BpZWQgb24gdGhpcyBhZG9wdGlv biBwb2xsLiZuYnNwOyBXZSBlbmNvdXJhZ2UgcGFydGljaXBhbnRzIGluDQo8L2Rpdj4NCjxkaXY+ QkZEIHdvcmtpbmcgZ3JvdXAgdG8gcHJvdmlkZSB0aGVpciBpbnB1dCBvbiB0aGUgYWRvcHRpb24g cG9sbC4mbmJzcDsgQW5kIHNob3VsZCB0aGlzIGRvY3VtZW50PC9kaXY+DQo8ZGl2PmJlIGFkb3B0 ZWQgYXMgYW4gUlRHV0cgZG9jdW1lbnQsIHdlIHdvdWxkIHBsYW4gdG8gY29weSB0aGUgQkZEIFdH IG9uIGVtYWlscyA8L2Rpdj4NCjxkaXY+cmVsYXRlZCB0byB0aGlzIGRvY3VtZW50IHRvIGJlbmVm aXQgZnJvbSB0aGUgQkZEIGV4cGVydGlzZSBpbiB0aGF0IFdHIGluIHRoZSBkZXZlbG9wbWVudA0K PC9kaXY+DQo8ZGl2Pm9mIHRoaXMgZG9jdW1lbnQuPC9kaXY+DQo8ZGl2PiZuYnNwOzwvZGl2Pg0K PGRpdj5QbGVhc2Ugc2VuZCB5b3VyIGNvbW1lbnRzIHRvIHRoZSBSVEdXRyBtYWlsaW5nIGxpc3Qg KDxhIGhyZWY9Im1haWx0bzpydGd3Z0BpZXRmLm9yZyI+PGZvbnQgY29sb3I9IiMwNTYzQzEiPjx1 PnJ0Z3dnQGlldGYub3JnPC91PjwvZm9udD48L2E+KSBpbmRpY2F0aW5nIHN1cHBvcnQNCjwvZGl2 Pg0KPGRpdj5vciBvcHBvc2l0aW9uIHRvIHRoZSBhZG9wdGlvbiBvZiB0aGlzIGRvY3VtZW50LCBh bG9uZyB3aXRoIHRoZSByZWFzb25pbmcgZm9yIHRoYXQgc3VwcG9ydDwvZGl2Pg0KPGRpdj5vciBv cHBvc2l0aW9uLiZuYnNwOyA8L2Rpdj4NCjxkaXY+Jm5ic3A7PC9kaXY+DQo8ZGl2PklmIHlvdSBh cmUgbGlzdGVkIGFzIGEgZG9jdW1lbnQgYXV0aG9yIG9yIGNvbnRyaWJ1dG9yLCBwbGVhc2UgcmVz cG9uZCB0byB0aGlzIGVtYWlsIHN0YXRpbmc8L2Rpdj4NCjxkaXY+d2hldGhlciBvciBub3QgeW91 IGFyZSBhd2FyZSBvZiBhbnkgcmVsZXZhbnQgSVBSLiZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyBUaGUgcmVzcG9uc2Ug bmVlZHMgdG8gYmUgc2VudCB0byB0aGUNCjwvZGl2Pg0KPGRpdj5SVEdXRyBtYWlsaW5nIGxpc3Qu IFRoZSBkb2N1bWVudCB3aWxsIG5vdCBhZHZhbmNlIHRvIHRoZSBuZXh0IHN0YWdlIHVudGlsIGEg cmVzcG9uc2UgaGFzPC9kaXY+DQo8ZGl2PmJlZW4gcmVjZWl2ZWQgZnJvbSBlYWNoIGF1dGhvciBh bmQgZWFjaCBpbmRpdmlkdWFsIHRoYXQgaGFzIGNvbnRyaWJ1dGVkIHRvIHRoZSBkb2N1bWVudC48 L2Rpdj4NCjxkaXY+Jm5ic3A7PC9kaXY+DQo8ZGl2PkF0IHRoaXMgcG9pbnQsIHRoZSBkb2N1bWVu dCBoYXMgdGhlIGZvbGxvd2luZyBJUFIgZGlzY2xvc3VyZSBhc3NvY2lhdGVkIHdpdGggaXQuPC9k aXY+DQo8ZGl2PjxhIGhyZWY9Imh0dHBzOi8vZGF0YXRyYWNrZXIuaWV0Zi5vcmcvaXByLzI3Mzkv Ij48Zm9udCBjb2xvcj0iIzA1NjNDMSI+PHU+aHR0cHM6Ly9kYXRhdHJhY2tlci5pZXRmLm9yZy9p cHIvMjczOS88L3U+PC9mb250PjwvYT48L2Rpdj4NCjxkaXY+Jm5ic3A7PC9kaXY+DQo8ZGl2PlRo aXMgYWRvcHRpb24gcG9sbCB3aWxsIGVuZCBvbiBGcmlkYXkgT2N0b2JlciAxNDxmb250IHNpemU9 IjEiPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSJmb250LXNpemU6Ny4zcHQ7Ij48c3VwPnRoPC9zdXA+PC9zcGFuPjwv Zm9udD4uPC9kaXY+DQo8ZGl2PiZuYnNwOzwvZGl2Pg0KPGRpdj5UaGFua3MsPC9kaXY+DQo8ZGl2 PkNocmlzIGFuZCBKZWZmPC9kaXY+DQo8ZGl2PiZuYnNwOzwvZGl2Pg0KPGRpdj4mbmJzcDs8L2Rp dj4NCjwvc3Bhbj48L2ZvbnQ+PC9kaXY+DQo8L2Rpdj4NCjwvYmxvY2txdW90ZT4NCjwvc3Bhbj4N CjwvYm9keT4NCjwvaHRtbD4NCg== --_000_D42273C88233Eaceeciscocom_-- From nobody Tue Oct 11 23:00:57 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D13971295D3; Tue, 11 Oct 2016 23:00:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XtQIUuahGxiz; Tue, 11 Oct 2016 23:00:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-yb0-x22e.google.com (mail-yb0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c09::22e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EED541295BC; Tue, 11 Oct 2016 23:00:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-yb0-x22e.google.com with SMTP id 191so16344760ybv.3; Tue, 11 Oct 2016 23:00:49 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=+Nlm+5B80OB6nz5PkpGMFfjl6o/oMKaVTSW0OEE8jtA=; b=IUkdcza3rfWBQ2ackQ3kAeZbnoN80fjKSgNEFHYKO5eMX5JZY0EzvXe1Wg4L3j0BcQ wlpwR6NT+34e1FOLjgnFLscg5hd7VE9tdq8oZcgXfTRUvJdv4pMArXJWO1oaVW63jceA u9ACUfMm/++q7lsNf1LCxdHXz2gaJ6Qt9UmJPFMIASocKLkRlPeN1fux34dWB//luiDQ +tPAZjGjyUEmr231uCGvRHH8f9o0oDUsByJV82yskfzyg3VANVUfVrDdZgrypUMb8zSW KdUl7yWt69hM+dHTkHYdR/uVqw8OS+p/ftvDnHPZNfU/iDDKufC9CYahzQCpaRjPk21q ol5A== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=+Nlm+5B80OB6nz5PkpGMFfjl6o/oMKaVTSW0OEE8jtA=; b=Xi8jR3y+W9pyMXzyi9kOHpQzh4EWRgkn3Mdm/ZPayO8rmn0NfAnzHhWtH+PqwyTAvw aGAQ+rNUZddkpfRTm8ywCK7rVQ0N8YdUBJvCiUI/siHm5kF12ncdL46dGViY3UAaiPEp SDhohw/xKAyYAZeCvaSpGmqa/lrKUf4JbH5JNTagciRF0FjS2LjFxgVtf4xZFyXgEXAk NcCMEaFwY12mtIiBTMy+YS1MJJoZV8f18o6jXrgRkpL/1gAixZwjaslqHAdI+NFW4Jyk QZlMd8DW41JO+FUyVsMdVeBN5wNZyYf1GN39uHCCcdVO5LHuoTzaJOsKHXPUC69Ph+UB YZpQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AA6/9RlPNf+SQ/UHvuZ3wNZ5TUAA2put0Nv9idmnB3bqRjUaM1QMvoBVHIsHv6POgTiJrNUJ3wA8QmHb76lReA== X-Received: by 10.37.244.5 with SMTP id q5mr7002388ybd.100.1476252049213; Tue, 11 Oct 2016 23:00:49 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.37.174.16 with HTTP; Tue, 11 Oct 2016 23:00:48 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Pushpasis Sarkar Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2016 11:30:48 +0530 Message-ID: Subject: Re: WG adoption poll on draft-nitish-vrrp-bfd-04 To: Chris Bowers Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f403045da80afe0d0d053ea4b655 Archived-At: Cc: "rtg-bfd@ietf.org" , "rtgwg@ietf.org" X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: "RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2016 06:00:53 -0000 --f403045da80afe0d0d053ea4b655 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Support. Thanks -Pushpasis On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 9:14 PM, Chris Bowers wrote: > 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 (*rtgwg@ietf.org* > ) 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/* > > > This adoption poll will end on Friday October 14th. > > Thanks, > Chris and Jeff > > > > _______________________________________________ > rtgwg mailing list > rtgwg@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg > > --f403045da80afe0d0d053ea4b655 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Support.=C2=A0

Thanks
-Pushpa= sis

On= Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 9:14 PM, Chris Bowers <cbowers@juniper.net&g= t; wrote:
RTGWG,
=C2=A0
This email starts a two week poll to gauge consensus on adopting draft= -nitish-vrrp-bfd-04
as an RTGWG working group document.
=C2=A0
The BFD working group is also copied on this adoption poll.=C2=A0 We e= ncourage participants in
BFD working group to provide their input on the adoption poll.=C2=A0 A= nd should this document
be adopted as an RTGWG document, we would plan to copy the BFD WG on e= mails
related to this document to benefit from the BFD expertise in that WG = in the development
of this document.
=C2=A0
Please send your comments to the RTGWG mailing list (rtgwg@ietf.or= g) indicating support
or opposition to the adoption of this document, along with the reasoni= ng for that support
or opposition.=C2=A0
=C2=A0
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.=C2=A0=C2=A0 The resp= onse needs to be sent to the
RTGWG mailing list. The document will not advance to the next stage un= til a response has
been received from each author and each individual that has contribute= d to the document.
=C2=A0
At this point, the document has the following IPR disclosure associate= d with it.
=C2=A0
This adoption poll will end on Friday October 14th.
=C2=A0
Thanks,
Chris and Jeff
=C2=A0
=C2=A0

_______________________________________________
rtgwg mailing list
rtgwg@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg


--f403045da80afe0d0d053ea4b655-- From nobody Wed Oct 12 04:40:42 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rtg-bfd@ietf.org Delivered-To: rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 048511294AD; Wed, 12 Oct 2016 04:40:41 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: Subject: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-09.txt X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.34.2 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <147627244101.24169.8319668402130593992.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2016 04:40:41 -0700 Archived-At: Cc: rtg-bfd@ietf.org X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 List-Id: "RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2016 11:40:41 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Bidirectional Forwarding Detection of the IETF. Title : BFD for Multipoint Networks Authors : Dave Katz Dave Ward Santosh Pallagatti Filename : draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-09.txt Pages : 18 Date : 2016-10-12 Abstract: This document describes extensions to the Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) protocol for its use in multipoint and multicast networks. Comments on this draft should be directed to rtg- bfd@ietf.org. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint/ There's also a htmlized version available at: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-09 A diff from the previous version is available at: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-09 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From nobody Wed Oct 12 07:54:04 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12652129507; Wed, 12 Oct 2016 07:53:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.699 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FREEMAIL_REPLY=1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kivhG0r21dLs; Wed, 12 Oct 2016 07:53:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-oi0-x22e.google.com (mail-oi0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::22e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ECB33129478; Wed, 12 Oct 2016 07:53:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-oi0-x22e.google.com with SMTP id t73so63542214oie.1; Wed, 12 Oct 2016 07:53:55 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=L4dc+x0MDC8JAtRJnPYUMwf8s5gyeonMxKTNXmzGRCE=; b=MMpNbxN8hvlq+GSalUeiemLAuJM3wtmQcg7v8I60mCV79ixOrIgtV7g4PnFWrdWpIi PJ4UFSn062dwW+H8rohSo5CICtwiEgAOIM+qPb0sRJ/EZE/6P5ea61G3Px8wW/schSSR OYr5YIVTSqc60lCpZauFj1tVNdmN9GO1o/Q3axSuevE+WApA5sO7cWjijuuA5FC6F1Gm SnR9NTDdf90x2NvOTZ51SMDgb1mnwKKP+/zjzBwU0GRKeTZs6GCCNt6/GLN/4ijn2Agr wSCJJDSx+tpQTJq1a6HMZkn8y9wlYB1Fbri1ejQaS31xkLCqo3fA4A8uFNwDpZRy2vKh VjnA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=L4dc+x0MDC8JAtRJnPYUMwf8s5gyeonMxKTNXmzGRCE=; b=e79FYEgEIx0w5ZkoNtJNydp5KAUham2PkBr+0BVAQO/eVtsiDPMv/hw7Ly6clmyaE5 gUFwjOjB5i6Sfdafii8Fr36mlu8ilmQuoFmggd5rGOi2Q51Z57JLGm6lBqXQKz0Jvxd3 u8ik7lkdT9H3GJaFYd4Yxsz09nZIbQmOo38F5xfg0LZAKTf8tddt+JcBS/SoOo+DwTns faXeWHHDSpupGlDm3wPoMj+uhtcwuJXGX4WpEKAdFnXkuRPUCfWpnlqeAYwN57cLKenO KKMHoUMTytD/BcpsFmYdotGB/kZQ9FNArbYJTaw2pYE452zgSYFtzk1KYDzpbFYVRbWL q0Kg== X-Gm-Message-State: AA6/9Rn8q/gTlX4PNf22EQoiX6qiS3htAZN+OaRqZY9fiYQKsLsnMmAYgbxcZqUR5P2T4OR7GsGBkP8zGM520g== X-Received: by 10.202.97.2 with SMTP id v2mr949857oib.157.1476284035353; Wed, 12 Oct 2016 07:53:55 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.157.49.116 with HTTP; Wed, 12 Oct 2016 07:53:54 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Greg Mirsky Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2016 07:53:54 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: WG adoption poll on draft-nitish-vrrp-bfd-04 To: Pushpasis Sarkar Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113d525a83d248053eac2975 Archived-At: Cc: "rtg-bfd@ietf.org" , "rtgwg@ietf.org" X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: "RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2016 14:53:58 -0000 --001a113d525a83d248053eac2975 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Yes/support as co-author Regards, Greg On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 11:00 PM, Pushpasis Sarkar wrote: > Support. > > Thanks > -Pushpasis > > On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 9:14 PM, Chris Bowers wrote: > >> 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 (*rtgwg@ietf.org* >> ) 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/* >> >> >> This adoption poll will end on Friday October 14th. >> >> Thanks, >> Chris and Jeff >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> rtgwg mailing list >> rtgwg@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > rtgwg mailing list > rtgwg@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg > > --001a113d525a83d248053eac2975 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Yes/support as co-author

Regards, Greg<= /div>

On Tue= , Oct 11, 2016 at 11:00 PM, Pushpasis Sarkar <pushpasis.ietf@gmail= .com> wrote:
Support.=C2=A0

Thanks
-Pushpasis

On Thu,= Sep 29, 2016 at 9:14 PM, Chris Bowers <cbowers@juniper.net> wrote:
RTGWG,
=C2=A0
This email starts a two week poll to gauge consensus on adopting draft= -nitish-vrrp-bfd-04
as an RTGWG working group document.
=C2=A0
The BFD working group is also copied on this adoption poll.=C2=A0 We e= ncourage participants in
BFD working group to provide their input on the adoption poll.=C2=A0 A= nd should this document
be adopted as an RTGWG document, we would plan to copy the BFD WG on e= mails
related to this document to benefit from the BFD expertise in that WG = in the development
of this document.
=C2=A0
Please send your comments to the RTGWG mailing list (rtgwg@ietf.or= g) indicating support
or opposition to the adoption of this document, along with the reasoni= ng for that support
or opposition.=C2=A0
=C2=A0
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.=C2=A0=C2=A0 The resp= onse needs to be sent to the
RTGWG mailing list. The document will not advance to the next stage un= til a response has
been received from each author and each individual that has contribute= d to the document.
=C2=A0
At this point, the document has the following IPR disclosure associate= d with it.
=C2=A0
This adoption poll will end on Friday October 14th.
=C2=A0
Thanks,
Chris and Jeff
=C2=A0
=C2=A0

_____________________________________= __________
rtgwg mailing list
rtgwg@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg



_______________________________________________
rtgwg mailing list
rtgwg@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg


--001a113d525a83d248053eac2975-- From nobody Wed Oct 12 14:29:27 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD3CA12954F; Wed, 12 Oct 2016 14:29:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.698 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.698 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cqEbd6j3vdTa; Wed, 12 Oct 2016 14:29:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qk0-x232.google.com (mail-qk0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::232]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8E18A1296F9; Wed, 12 Oct 2016 14:29:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qk0-x232.google.com with SMTP id f128so53844872qkb.1; Wed, 12 Oct 2016 14:29:21 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=user-agent:date:subject:from:to:cc:message-id:thread-topic :references:in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=DdiTbXiwjt8iALo2F9engDYjzJMKbI5L2y2WQRmPZcw=; b=aswvfhTTcDtGno5VKiTpbRq9TxIx4py3SZ/AJbtYN3L+lM1w7cPfw4BlrSePigHJKV 0L5C2gV0KX1NbLx6bfVGfDpjrHHUgZc9RNii+fgN0YcTGrDFcONYXXT01XGE8h7/9ezl /qijTNcDQyQxXZYomVOVQ33oFkISKmk8ceUmusHfQr92pW9T7mBhwqQCqLXubZoxyoDr AiOj2HPjoy+Pl4v06ltAKGhwUQeL0HX/1YClebZ644EbCmtqxX5vjkrgA+lNkqiHTMZw a0A74XPbd7+w9prwhDg8A4JcXR71su8ETeWMY8Iukw6mJaX+E0ZsLVrg0Koh8gEBsk5r ZM4A== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:user-agent:date:subject:from:to:cc:message-id :thread-topic:references:in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=DdiTbXiwjt8iALo2F9engDYjzJMKbI5L2y2WQRmPZcw=; b=RqTN1LZwf5v0P3z5Ci66AzkPtj+85vSIV//grj8+Uq7Ux9DuTqrE3q6udeo8yGkXYX hAsxkqUpkyVEozFvlGQsGAMQXI+PJWurIjVIJufqgNjChv4iOtu9JLeH18F0755/Zud5 dY7XklfsWc9M4OjNRct+CQ9mp8wQNQs9RjSTtFRQwbtN+ocgRsnoJIoEbjUuwosXXuHL pOex4eNswD1ZlD84PKu0MnG6TlUJWnwFui/GP0pLypXQ4u0LmJGhiA2vUz7gdLueSRaj ia+iVICq7o1MvFNhbRcNUI+lrVUEvrAZe5PDJesiujH5OJCJDALtSVeprmhK5q++fq5J 1LyQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AA6/9RmBWg1u7Zd8DfmjJyA9ZazcGlRvccWXsywX0H6Smb/o+ofeNlk+QKfoNqU3IJ7lMg== X-Received: by 10.194.59.18 with SMTP id v18mr4338082wjq.69.1476307760521; Wed, 12 Oct 2016 14:29:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.10.50.211] ([92.67.4.2]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id q8sm16205332wjj.7.2016.10.12.14.29.18 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 12 Oct 2016 14:29:19 -0700 (PDT) User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/f.1a.1.160916 Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2016 14:29:16 -0700 Subject: Re: WG adoption poll on draft-nitish-vrrp-bfd-04 From: Jeff Tantsura To: "rtg-bfd@ietf.org" Message-ID: Thread-Topic: WG adoption poll on draft-nitish-vrrp-bfd-04 References: In-Reply-To: Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="B_3559127358_639353810" Archived-At: Cc: "rtgwg@ietf.org" X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: "RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2016 21:29:25 -0000 > This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. --B_3559127358_639353810 Content-type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Support as co-author Cheers, Jeff On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 9:14 PM, Chris Bowers wrote: 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 (rtgwg@ietf.org) 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/ This adoption poll will end on Friday October 14th. Thanks, Chris and Jeff _______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list rtgwg@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg _______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list rtgwg@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg _______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list rtgwg@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg --B_3559127358_639353810 Content-type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable

Support as co-author

&n= bsp;

Cheers,

<= span style=3D'font-size:10.5pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black'>Jeff

 

On Thu, Sep 29= , 2016 at 9:14 PM, Chris Bowers <cbowers@juniper.net> wrote:

RTGWG,

 

= This email starts a two w= eek poll to gauge consensus on adopting draft-nitish-vrrp-bfd-04<= /span>

as an RTGWG working group document.

 

The BFD working group is also copied on th= is adoption poll.  We encourage participants in

<= /div>

BFD working group to provide their input on the adoption poll.  And= should this document

be adopted as an RTGWG docum= ent, we would plan to copy the BFD WG on emails

=

r= elated to this document to benefit from the BFD expertise in that WG in the = development

of this document.

 

Please send your comments to the RTG= WG mailing list (rtgwg@ietf.org) indicating support

or opposition to the adoption of this document, along with the= reasoning for that support

or opposition.  <= o:p>

 

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.&n= bsp;  The response needs to be sent to the

=

R= TGWG mailing list. The document will not advance to the next stage until a r= esponse has

been received from each author and eac= h individual that has contributed to the document.

 

At this point, the document has the follow= ing IPR disclosure associated with it.

 

This adoption poll will end on Friday= October 14th<= /span>.<= /span>

 

Thanks,

Chris and Jeff

 

<= /div>

 

 

________= _______________________________________
rtgwg mailing list
rtgwg@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/ma= ilman/listinfo/rtgwg

 

=
_______________________________________________
rtgwg mailing listrtgwg@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailma= n/listinfo/rtgwg

 

_________________________________= ______________ rtgwg mailing list rtgwg@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailma= n/listinfo/rtgwg

--B_3559127358_639353810-- From nobody Thu Oct 13 08:55:07 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rtg-bfd@ietf.org Delivered-To: rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D08B7129553; Thu, 13 Oct 2016 08:55:05 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: Subject: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-active-tail-03.txt X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.34.2 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <147637410585.2870.17025631704707645917.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 08:55:05 -0700 Archived-At: Cc: rtg-bfd@ietf.org X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 List-Id: "RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 15:55:06 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Bidirectional Forwarding Detection of the IETF. Title : BFD Multipoint Active Tails. Authors : Dave Katz Dave Ward Santosh Pallagatti Filename : draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-active-tail-03.txt Pages : 17 Date : 2016-10-13 Abstract: This document describes active tail extensions to the Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) protocol for multipoint and multicast networks. Comments on this draft should be directed to rtg- bfd@ietf.org. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-active-tail/ There's also a htmlized version available at: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-active-tail-03 A diff from the previous version is available at: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-active-tail-03 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From nobody Thu Oct 13 12:42:01 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6206A129547; Thu, 13 Oct 2016 12:41:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.62 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.62 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YTCqDHEc9nie; Thu, 13 Oct 2016 12:41:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp2.iomartmail.com (asmtp2.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.249]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 60C30129444; Thu, 13 Oct 2016 12:41:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp2.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp2.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id u9DJfsbe006073; Thu, 13 Oct 2016 20:41:54 +0100 Received: from 950129200 (dsl-dp-81-140-107-38.in-addr.broadbandscope.com [81.140.107.38]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp2.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id u9DJfqmS006059 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 13 Oct 2016 20:41:53 +0100 From: "Adrian Farrel" To: References: <96b62e00-2179-d27f-a88b-8d938bbc2f4d@pi.nu> In-Reply-To: <96b62e00-2179-d27f-a88b-8d938bbc2f4d@pi.nu> Subject: RE: WG adoption poll on draft-nitish-vrrp-bfd-04 Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 20:41:51 +0100 Message-ID: <02ff01d22589$d87eedb0$897cc910$@olddog.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQEva4x+IET2zhJ2bHy4H0ITgmNojwGmruVqod8CopA= Content-Language: en-gb X-TM-AS-MML: disable X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.1.0.1679-8.0.0.1202-22636.001 X-TM-AS-Result: No--28.955-10.0-31-10 X-imss-scan-details: No--28.955-10.0-31-10 X-TMASE-MatchedRID: oCj5caaCQynVmBqdOLvJWFu4M/xm4KZeNACnndLvXwdBDVeC8J7uwV3y XN769IXFCNPeehH4kHZO4fijP2drFSVqTewNlt0emiJwL3Tqgwj3BfGeW4qde9zEpHD4pviDwGh L9feRX4+MwNO/UYLIFycf6POBH64YV0ThOjwD9lwtMfCdg6KRDbqGBW9J0YqjRUZL9AeG8IJiEk ut93dWasnQ4zygxYNCNeTdZsPw85rmzYT8cOkbWSFbWss9AgWzUbJBJIpagZIheGJy0E+iq6ELL XKpe30vMXEn4M+GcWvxTwx4UJIMcsSsicU7ThvNlVHM/F6YkvTp8lxWp2elloKwF4K/wIz9n2vX drvtfxac0LolA7Pt36RgXwqqio5flHteogMkfhxIRA38P/dwbsMdI0UcXEHznSPw4pGdVDxM8+V vfAYWVrNQL/WPxzZhc4v05O1/ow1A90k3OkvQzgRH1Nr7oERdDRi0jfY6gL2KlJ71TX9+g7mnrG B/kwGMOWEGdQXJzriPLw4GgsXNkKXgCCul34T6ma6DzXaohvMLitYSIrUiB74zxeZ5siT75YcOu ccmINFAzwcA3QeK8aM0F5BAY7Mdq87gT7hcKkL/VoEOchXiKX3kgnrTU41XSovQVJZjDvvzb5km gp405bfqHaErmu92kZOl7WKIImq0P2qkGU0XylZ0V5tYhzdWxEHRux+uk8jpP8tMOyYmaA== Archived-At: Cc: rtg-bfd@ietf.org, rtgwg-chairs@ietf.org, mpls-chairs@ietf.org, bfd-chairs@ietf.org X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk List-Id: "RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 19:41:59 -0000 Hi all, Since Loa quotes me extensively from a thread about a completely different draft, perhaps I had better state my opinion on this draft. I hate to be standing in the way of progressing work that it is a clear a number of people want to see move forward, but I find the IPR disclosure against this draft to be inconvenient. Since the reference is to an unpublished patent application we cannot look it up to find out whether we (as individuals) think it applies to our implementations. Furthermore, we can't try to work out a solution that is unencumbered because we don't know what the patent application covers. This might not be an issue except for the fact that the IPR disclosure seems to include licensing terms that are different from the commonly used "Company will not assert any patents owned or controlled by Company against any party for making, using, selling, importing or offering for sale a product that implements the standard, provided, however that Company retains the right to assert its patents (including the right to claim past royalties) against any party that asserts a patent it owns or controls (either directly or indirectly) against Company." I think it is important for the working group to seek to develop solutions that either completely unencumbered by IPR or that are available on free-to-implementers terms. It may turn out that this is not possible with the disclosed IPR, but I think the WG should try. In the current situation, I don't see how the WG can make such an attempt until it has seen the IPR and so I do not support the WG adopting the document at the moment. Circumstances may change in the future. To be clear, I am not asking IPR-holder to vary its commercial behaviour. I am not making any comment on the IPR-holder's rights to impose whatever license they want, and I am not asking them to vary their terms. Thanks, Adrian > -----Original Message----- > From: rtgwg [mailto:rtgwg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Loa Andersson > Sent: 09 October 2016 13:55 > To: rtg-bfd@ietf.org; rtgwg@ietf.org; rtgwg-chairs@ietf.org; bfd-chairs@ietf.org; > mpls-chairs@ietf.org > Subject: Re: WG adoption poll on draft-nitish-vrrp-bfd-04 > > Folks, > > When the mpls wg last called draft-ietf-mpls-bfd-directed we received > the following comment related the IPRs disclosed for this document: > > "Ross, thanks for this notice. > I need to read the IPR referenced by the disclosure, but pending > that, I do not support this document going forward in its current > state. > > I think it is important for the working group to seek to develop > solutions that either completely unencumbered by IPR or that is > available on free-to-implementers terms. It may turn out that this > is not possible with the disclosed IPR, but I think the WG should > try. > > For the avoidance of doubt: I am not making any comment on the > IPR-holder's rights to impose whatever license they want, and I am > not asking them to vary their terms. > > I do note that it would be convenient if the IPR holder updated the > disclosure to show that it applies to the current WG draft. > > Thanks, > > Adrian" > > The document has since then been blocked by failure to reach a > consensus on the IPR. In the mean time there has also been new > technical comments that the authors tried to address. > > The Patent application referred to in the disclosure is: > > Appl no: US Serial No.: 14/512,259 > Appl date: October 13, 2014 > > Later updated to: > Patent, Serial, Publication, Registration, or Application/File number(s) > US Serial No: 14/846580, filed Sept 4, 2015 > > This document has a very similar (not to say identical) IPR disclosure > referencing: > > Appl.No: US Serial No: 14/512.259 > Appl.date: October 13, 2014 > > (for some reason this has not been updated. > > I note the same thing as Adrian, it would be convenient if the IPR > holder updated the disclosure to show that it applies to the current > WG draft(s). > > For the time being and for the very same reason that apply to the mpls > wg document I do not support this document being adopted as a wg doc, > unless it is clearly stated that the goal is to create a standard that > is that the working group to seek to develop a solution that either is > completely unencumbered by IPR or that is available on free-to- > implement terms. > > /Loa > > > > On 29/09/2016 23:44, Chris Bowers wrote: > > 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 (_rtgwg@ietf.org_ > > ) 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/_ > > > > This adoption poll will end on Friday October 14^th . > > > > Thanks, > > Chris and Jeff > > > > > > -- > > > Loa Andersson email: loa@mail01.huawei.com > Senior MPLS Expert loa@pi.nu > Huawei Technologies (consultant) phone: +46 739 81 21 64 > > _______________________________________________ > rtgwg mailing list > rtgwg@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg From nobody Fri Oct 14 04:20:08 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B1E11294AB; Fri, 14 Oct 2016 04:20:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -17.516 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-17.516 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-2.996, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ENs1nEQbb8Gf; Fri, 14 Oct 2016 04:20:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.86.77]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B7D86129455; Fri, 14 Oct 2016 04:20:04 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=11071; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1476444004; x=1477653604; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: mime-version; bh=DMqfBur2xda/kdajMiYj6GpBSWuaVAT+ZyAyvfazwYs=; b=ADBGXNi8HU3evYhHVKIp9F1vXVgmp11qqe6h+X2CemEHq0VuV4ySYbDO 2ymZ423V2EsGnXvQ8sYDjLFM97aLVaYZscz3WSCVKRYfGB6M072CWwKLN 8dRv1vAlKNJftAs6fshFJsFfS+S1JES2rRsnF5b8QIgzdP3Ihkrhnxah7 M=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0CmAQA/vgBY/5ldJa1cGgEBAQECAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QgBAQEBgwc1AQEBAQEdV3wHjS2XBY8khRSCCCSFfgKCETgUAQIBAQEBAQEBXie?= =?us-ascii?q?EYQEBAQQtPgMGFQIBCA4DBAEBKAcyFAkIAQEEARIIiEoOwxoBAQEBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBAQEBAQEBAQEYBYY9hFWEGREBUoUpBZQrhVsBhieJUYF1hGeDN4VpjHmDfgE?= =?us-ascii?q?eNlKEaXKGFYEggQABAQE?= X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.31,344,1473120000"; d="scan'208,217";a="159726117" Received: from rcdn-core-2.cisco.com ([173.37.93.153]) by rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 14 Oct 2016 11:20:03 +0000 Received: from XCH-ALN-019.cisco.com (xch-aln-019.cisco.com [173.36.7.29]) by rcdn-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u9EBK3Um019545 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 14 Oct 2016 11:20:03 GMT Received: from xch-rcd-020.cisco.com (173.37.102.30) by XCH-ALN-019.cisco.com (173.36.7.29) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Fri, 14 Oct 2016 06:20:02 -0500 Received: from xch-rcd-020.cisco.com ([173.37.102.30]) by XCH-RCD-020.cisco.com ([173.37.102.30]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Fri, 14 Oct 2016 06:20:03 -0500 From: "Vengada Prasad Govindan (venggovi)" To: Chris Bowers , "rtgwg@ietf.org" , "rtg-bfd@ietf.org" Subject: RE: WG adoption poll on draft-nitish-vrrp-bfd-04 Thread-Topic: WG adoption poll on draft-nitish-vrrp-bfd-04 Thread-Index: AdIaZGPlJxb+ITrzQuavzBeZL6nhIQLqEQNA Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2016 11:20:02 +0000 Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted x-originating-ip: [10.143.25.121] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_a58471e79e244ad9b583c39d92d9052aXCHRCD020ciscocom_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: "RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2016 11:20:06 -0000 --_000_a58471e79e244ad9b583c39d92d9052aXCHRCD020ciscocom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Have read the draft and think it is useful in addressing a valid use case. = Hence I support its adoption. Thanks Prasad From: Rtg-bfd [mailto:rtg-bfd-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Chris Bowers Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2016 9:14 PM To: rtgwg@ietf.org; rtg-bfd@ietf.org Subject: WG adoption poll on draft-nitish-vrrp-bfd-04 RTGWG, This email starts a two week poll to gauge consensus on adopting draft-niti= sh-vrrp-bfd-04 as an RTGWG working group document. The BFD working group is also copied on this adoption poll. We encourage p= articipants 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 th= e development of this document. Please send your comments to the RTGWG mailing list (rtgwg@ietf.org) indicating support or opposition to the adoption of this document, along with the reasoning fo= r that support or opposition. If you are listed as a document author or contributor, please respond to th= is email stating whether or not you are aware of any relevant IPR. The response needs to b= e 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 wit= h it. https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2739/ This adoption poll will end on Friday October 14th. Thanks, Chris and Jeff --_000_a58471e79e244ad9b583c39d92d9052aXCHRCD020ciscocom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Have read the draft and think it is u= seful in addressing a valid use case. Hence I support its adoption.

Thanks

Prasad

 

From: Rtg-bfd [mailto:rtg-bfd-bounce= s@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Chris Bowers
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2016 9:14 PM
To: rtgwg@ietf.org; rtg-bfd@ietf.org
Subject: WG adoption poll on draft-nitish-vrrp-bfd-04

 

RTGWG,

 

This email starts a two week poll to gauge consensu= s on adopting draft-nitish-vrrp-bfd-04

as an RTGWG working group document.

 

The BFD working group is also copied on this adopti= on poll.  We encourage participants in

BFD working group to provide their input on the ado= ption poll.  And should this document

be adopted as an RTGWG document, we would plan to c= opy the BFD WG on emails

related to this document to benefit from the BFD ex= pertise in that WG in the development

of this document.

 

Please send your comments to the RTGWG mailing list= (rtgwg@iet= f.org) indicating support

or opposition to the adoption of this document, alo= ng with the reasoning for that support

or opposition. 

 

If you are listed as a document author or contribut= or, please respond to this email stating

whether or not you are aware of any relevant IPR.&n= bsp;  The response needs to be sent to the

RTGWG mailing list. The document will not advance t= o 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 d= isclosure associated with it.

 

This adoption poll will end on Friday October 14th.

 

Thanks,

Chris and Jeff

 

 

--_000_a58471e79e244ad9b583c39d92d9052aXCHRCD020ciscocom_-- From nobody Thu Oct 20 08:11:00 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E4A61295AC; Thu, 20 Oct 2016 08:10:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.902 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=junipernetworks.onmicrosoft.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id c-gMhzeMgAFq; Thu, 20 Oct 2016 08:10:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from NAM01-SN1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-sn1nam01on0134.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.32.134]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C1E9E1294FB; Thu, 20 Oct 2016 08:10:50 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=junipernetworks.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-juniper-net; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=0C8Hn7lGIgNrTJFN9U7PQq2VnuSAcKZH/L2+yo7JX6I=; b=Ig9UrPUQOCo6+Y707eHCmTKHE9wsy56NOVnhi5ojfhPlO8N318fhJSGhkfhE1lGMDdIICkKpqJy10EDvGwO7B0fpjY+cmUM3WYImB+C6cq+EpO40Jv8+bssV5MN56B+LTmmZ9RAjFBcTPj0ODzAJbLw1U7syGVEdOsXwhY80qkA= Received: from MWHPR05MB2829.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.168.245.11) by MWHPR05MB2831.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.168.245.13) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384_P384) id 15.1.669.5; Thu, 20 Oct 2016 15:10:48 +0000 Received: from MWHPR05MB2829.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.168.245.11]) by MWHPR05MB2829.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.168.245.11]) with mapi id 15.01.0669.018; Thu, 20 Oct 2016 15:10:48 +0000 From: Chris Bowers To: "rtgwg@ietf.org" , "rtg-bfd@ietf.org" Subject: RE: WG adoption poll on draft-nitish-vrrp-bfd-04 Thread-Topic: WG adoption poll on draft-nitish-vrrp-bfd-04 Thread-Index: AdIaZGPlJxb+ITrzQuavzBeZL6nhIQP77YQA Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2016 15:10:48 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=cbowers@juniper.net; x-originating-ip: [66.129.239.10] x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 3d80baea-8176-4cdc-92de-08d3f8fb45f5 x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; MWHPR05MB2831; 7:1KWb80l1mE5t53QoSi58vfawwWK5U8lCZd8RLzfMHsmCyblt8rw6944FsMkpLqxyFSgZO1dxgsuuCLQ2EuHGlBMFaZWsPazVlIpLEZOsojzz0NU36DvSN45/nAPiNLBBnwUWKlNIPYmNiI4sVw+aJv0m8Tk3kbL/vuHLibtzzqGLly+wudCvdeMhz5t2OoP+r2FTHmZLAdgo4EIEAXpKXTXlmKdX3xwYsBBMOk2DHpVqCBtW1CnSlf/kTWruqulXMTH4Era6qOlb8UcgSvkPHi5W+ZqUZuLq8V/bUZEYrr9Fo72MRI7IYuwqUhXY6fKhyp0ZmDqjXSTjvhRe17ylADMnupW9kBmJp70eT36Ahio= x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:MWHPR05MB2831; x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:(120809045254105)(100405760836317)(21748063052155); x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(6040176)(601004)(2401047)(8121501046)(5005006)(3002001)(10201501046)(6055026); SRVR:MWHPR05MB2831; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:MWHPR05MB2831; x-forefront-prvs: 01018CB5B3 x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(6009001)(7916002)(189002)(377454003)(199003)(51444003)(68736007)(6116002)(19580395003)(305945005)(19580405001)(5660300001)(106356001)(3660700001)(105586002)(102836003)(99286002)(11100500001)(3280700002)(7696004)(2900100001)(7736002)(230783001)(10400500002)(450100001)(86362001)(77096005)(5001770100001)(8936002)(15975445007)(97736004)(87936001)(8676002)(9686002)(5002640100001)(7846002)(189998001)(2906002)(101416001)(92566002)(54356999)(81156014)(50986999)(3846002)(74316002)(586003)(66066001)(2501003)(107886002)(76576001)(33656002)(81166006)(122556002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:MWHPR05MB2831; H:MWHPR05MB2829.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1; LANG:en; received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: juniper.net does not designate permitted sender hosts) spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99 spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_MWHPR05MB2829CF8AB32089C947BA4214A9D50MWHPR05MB2829namp_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 20 Oct 2016 15:10:48.2442 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: bea78b3c-4cdb-4130-854a-1d193232e5f4 X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: MWHPR05MB2831 Archived-At: X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: "RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2016 15:10:55 -0000 --_000_MWHPR05MB2829CF8AB32089C947BA4214A9D50MWHPR05MB2829namp_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RTGWG, At this point, I don't think that there is a consensus for the working grou= p to adopt this draft without more discussion of the issue raised by Loa Andersson and Adrian Far= rel 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/msg05718.html The main objection raised in these two emails is that the working group sho= uld 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 c= urrently not possible to evaluate this situation with respect to this draft. The reason for the IPR disclosure process is to allow working groups to tak= e into consideration the potential licensing of IPR when evaluating alternative technical soluti= ons. At this point, adopting draft-nitish-vrrp-bfd-04 as the basis for work on standardizing th= e use of VRRP with BFD without more discussion of this issue would imply that there is co= nsensus that the working group should not take potential licensing of IPR into account f= or 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 ab= out whether or not potential licensing of IPR should be taken into account when evaluat= ing alternative technologies for this work. Chris _____________________________________________ From: Chris Bowers Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2016 10:44 AM To: 'rtgwg@ietf.org' ; rtg-bfd@ietf.org Subject: WG adoption poll on draft-nitish-vrrp-bfd-04 RTGWG, This email starts a two week poll to gauge consensus on adopting draft-niti= sh-vrrp-bfd-04 as an RTGWG working group document. The BFD working group is also copied on this adoption poll. We encourage p= articipants 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 th= e development of this document. Please send your comments to the RTGWG mailing list (rtgwg@ietf.org) indicating support or opposition to the adoption of this document, along with the reasoning fo= r that support or opposition. If you are listed as a document author or contributor, please respond to th= is email stating whether or not you are aware of any relevant IPR. The response needs to b= e 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 wit= h it. https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2739/ This adoption poll will end on Friday October 14th. Thanks, Chris and Jeff --_000_MWHPR05MB2829CF8AB32089C947BA4214A9D50MWHPR05MB2829namp_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
RTGWG,
 
At this point, I don’t think that there is a consensus for the w= orking group to adopt this draft
without more discussion of the issue raised by Loa Andersson and Adria= n Farrel in the
following two emails.
 
 
The main objection raised in these two emails is that the working grou= p 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 t= o take into consideration
the potential licensing of IPR when evaluating alternative technical s= olutions.  At this point,
adopting draft-nitish-vrrp-bfd-04 as the basis for work on standardizi= ng 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 acco= unt 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 b= e the potential to
reach a consensus if the working group can come to an explicit agreeme= nt about whether
or not potential licensing of IPR should be taken into account when ev= aluating alternative
technologies for this work.
 
Chris
 
_____________________________________________
From: Chris Bowers
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2016 10:44 AM
To: 'rtgwg@ietf.org' <rtgwg@ietf.org>; rtg-bfd@ietf.org
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 e= ncourage participants in
BFD working group to provide their input on the adoption poll.  A= nd should this document
be adopted as an RTGWG document, we would plan to copy the BFD WG on e= mails
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 (rtgwg@ietf.org) = indicating support
or opposition to the adoption of this document, along with the reasoni= ng 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 resp= onse needs to be sent to the
RTGWG mailing list. The document will not advance to the next stage un= til a response has
been received from each author and each individual that has contribute= d to the document.
 
At this point, the document has the following IPR disclosure associate= d with it.
 
This adoption poll will end on Friday October 14th.
 
Thanks,
Chris and Jeff
 
 
 --_000_MWHPR05MB2829CF8AB32089C947BA4214A9D50MWHPR05MB2829namp_-- From nobody Wed Oct 26 07:22:07 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5B4D129424; Wed, 26 Oct 2016 07:20:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.62 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.62 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5g_xKyPzYdE9; Wed, 26 Oct 2016 07:20:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp5.iomartmail.com (asmtp5.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.176]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DC0D0129408; Wed, 26 Oct 2016 07:20:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp5.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp5.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id u9QEKDRd008275; Wed, 26 Oct 2016 15:20:13 +0100 Received: from 950129200 (28.200.114.87.dyn.plus.net [87.114.200.28]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp5.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id u9QEKCEq008250 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 26 Oct 2016 15:20:12 +0100 From: "Adrian Farrel" To: "'Chris Bowers'" , , References: In-Reply-To: Subject: RE: WG adoption poll on draft-nitish-vrrp-bfd-04 Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2016 15:20:11 +0100 Message-ID: <060701d22f94$10b924c0$322b6e40$@olddog.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0608_01D22F9C.7280E820" X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQGnKxm+PXIVrKQ0rMfiARCN/F3hL6EQyG1g Content-Language: en-gb X-TM-AS-MML: disable X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.1.0.1679-8.0.0.1202-22660.007 X-TM-AS-Result: No--23.997-10.0-31-10 X-imss-scan-details: No--23.997-10.0-31-10 X-TMASE-MatchedRID: 8HTFlOrbAtHtvMVN/9JMyp21GZGE81yG0nXvwjW2mSUumgtCQEXZ/iNo hHesUr2QAVEk3tTMpwrUe7Xjz/r6oVYpd80WgN/vW7gz/Gbgpl7/47RIpeE+V9hMNz5U8DsXVri cCR5WSm7IGW1PL4tUh1Dd7rA7JoFaqAn9Dm/i+2LCu3097eieeQ0YtI32OoC9tOtpvXS6qufAkt gDJtZ0AlnK4RQsIpEwteG0FggWc3wLW2bI+DYY7HBRIrj8R47FKau5fqTELpP9k2xa9Ahjg9OGj ZUqGWjEJmLqKu2yqdltE63XdtkUOBGRuqAmkM32CFaAixm5eU/YP0VsOD0E/mjliw+xvItd8f7Q ZtEXuwZKwuG29285VRXCSMTtleITT09fC9Tx663N+qWlu2ZxaPT3/K+ej/DoyPRAwD/3abacQzA jFyPGDdFChERArRPnHjXpWy/tu9EIBUYrvxGmwnlMlWV+Ir670vNkFv6xUCNdKWx22BOmiagTPH jMLlQl4FD3otNxTUP5ceH/IIsL8Nq72IXmYAV7qbg9uWhLYLcZO8jjfdepCV+lV1+J0TE3svEAl cZZFUUA10+0811gl0DpZ5A9hUaeaaqmAEPiermdVNZaI2n6/56KYa03LCO2dDwP5ItpCOxLVOP6 Sq/6Gw7G7azt901XixYJ8/oaa/l1tKCSzroCgY9URkDgdlb5/RmmEswf7IeiXe5nNnUYt6BKM62 rmx9p8eoBfgDeEI7gXuUEZiH4rz8G3G/wjVDpcLw8nYQVLsggFyxci4S+VuRnWbJNcqgXKqHlxT J7eJUibp8py4XIryhHQrcMnybC1lfDCm9+EZWeAiCmPx4NwGmRqNBHmBvevqq8s2MNhPDPPeN6H N6d7EPs5Q2GDC4G87FVmBw+ImN/ksjZjIeNENXIIUu7h2kzAU+xImx6jwfNsFAqgvAzug== Archived-At: X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 26 Oct 2016 07:22:05 -0700 X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk List-Id: "RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2016 14:20:44 -0000 This is a multipart message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0608_01D22F9C.7280E820 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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:rtgwg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Chris Bowers Sent: 20 October 2016 16:11 To: rtgwg@ietf.org; rtg-bfd@ietf.org 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/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: 'rtgwg@ietf.org' ; rtg-bfd@ietf.org 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 ( rtgwg@ietf.org) 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/ This adoption poll will end on Friday October 14th. Thanks, Chris and Jeff ------=_NextPart_000_0608_01D22F9C.7280E820 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

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:rtgwg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Chris = Bowers
Sent: 20 October 2016 16:11
To: = rtgwg@ietf.org; rtg-bfd@ietf.org
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.

 

 

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: 'rtgwg@ietf.org' <rtgwg@ietf.org>; = rtg-bfd@ietf.org
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 (rtgwg@ietf.org) 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.

 

This adoption poll will end on Friday = October 14th.

 

Thanks,

Chris and = Jeff

 

 

------=_NextPart_000_0608_01D22F9C.7280E820-- From nobody Thu Oct 27 11:25:36 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF21712954E; Thu, 27 Oct 2016 11:25:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id H536q29S9l6V; Thu, 27 Oct 2016 11:25:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-oi0-x229.google.com (mail-oi0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 968B5129573; Thu, 27 Oct 2016 11:25:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-oi0-x229.google.com with SMTP id n202so61481452oig.3; Thu, 27 Oct 2016 11:25:32 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=XJ8VY7XL4Zf/3elYXUK9pMhY2VEKdhJRVUJ11h3mVq4=; b=gWOo35n7rZqI+hUtZLNVXqleot/uwrWqsySBtkYjC3/I+tKyfvBJhXGOx3SZEkUXs3 P5sbG66F3a/Z5lhZY9h5Ns8JgoYS1FpswA//C+soQR2l07qL8cxvm1uJIEXzIABQSSXh T6ova1INJ/X+6AD8lW3D58dm/LrMBEWsmycQ6WJoD93cygaflt316XsPdQr2/XNL8xMn W/TLocH4/s/z6Hx5Pre+hdm34NaIsT4gvsQt/rHJC0s82E2scF26XLGngeyjGz72xetB Bps7hcCz01Zlgpqi6SxGXbYQYCP3NXDan7Ff1+9hoinH+Ol4pvNB1vkq45kuaZdTMut8 2+SA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=XJ8VY7XL4Zf/3elYXUK9pMhY2VEKdhJRVUJ11h3mVq4=; b=afI9e5XNJ9645gKes5/vB+6qxDMw12wUK3mpIjy6HxgMH+91vcs8dtTuYspp23ONKu uFBAVRNxln2eq/DZ1DeehUPdPPaaH8ZH452mkdq+938ZfyT8iYNJWsK1f3NK7tPYoUp+ 5yE/u5Di3mE8r4rfSHy2Igomg9jQjmhmTwVD9/YOH9e60MEISrOyDq6HepJv8mRrqYF3 vBOuF/MQQs7EXGgXWVIAdLMpFyOrPY0OXZ9no03k9I4Y5SPNpXANSvoLH6pAvRcg1yNj +ufa1KNnkOEjrcWckyF4qPh1x/0hElGRt5eG9sbOKbgb2tEqwmF2AKfabVjuy8iDWarM +1qA== X-Gm-Message-State: ABUngvfEaoxJi8UeFJtmYY9jHTUt/KDSBSbO9ZBiF47/iyqbKxiY66mfDci8XPzbHhcfqBbKyfv4PLcZdu19aQ== X-Received: by 10.157.14.228 with SMTP id 91mr6754296otj.133.1477592731877; Thu, 27 Oct 2016 11:25:31 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.157.49.116 with HTTP; Thu, 27 Oct 2016 11:25:31 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <060701d22f94$10b924c0$322b6e40$@olddog.co.uk> References: <060701d22f94$10b924c0$322b6e40$@olddog.co.uk> From: Greg Mirsky Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2016 11:25:31 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: WG adoption poll on draft-nitish-vrrp-bfd-04 To: Adrian Farrel Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11371910e8097d053fdcdd94 Archived-At: Cc: "rtg-bfd@ietf.org" , "rtgwg@ietf.org" X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: "RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2016 18:25:35 -0000 --001a11371910e8097d053fdcdd94 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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 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 an= d > decide what to do. The alternative would then be exactly the same a, b, a= nd > 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 worki= ng > 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:rtgwg-bounces@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *Chris Bowers > *Sent:* 20 October 2016 16:11 > *To:* rtgwg@ietf.org; rtg-bfd@ietf.org > *Subject:* RE: WG adoption poll on draft-nitish-vrrp-bfd-04 > > > > RTGWG, > > > > At this point, I don=E2=80=99t think that there is a consensus for the wo= rking > 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/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 visibilit= y > 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=E2=80=99t 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:* 'rtgwg@ietf.org' ; rtg-bfd@ietf.org > *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 shoul= d > 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 (rtgwg@ietf.org) > 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 t= o > the document. > > > > At this point, the document has the following IPR disclosure associated > with it. > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2739/ > > > > This adoption poll will end on Friday October 14th. > > > > Thanks, > > Chris and Jeff > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > rtgwg mailing list > rtgwg@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg > > --001a11371910e8097d053fdcdd94 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Dear All,
to the best of my knowledge and understandin= g the disclosed IPR may be relevant only to Section 4.=C2=A0

=
Regards,
Greg
On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 7:20 AM, Adrian Farrel= <adrian@olddog.co.uk> wrote:

It might (or might not :-) help if I give some clarification of my po= sition on this draft.

[I'm not trying to tell the chairs how to do their= job!]

=C2=A0

We are not in a position at the moment to make our own individu= al assessments of whether or how the disclosed IPR covers the draft. This i= s because we cannot yet see the content of the IPR filed in the disclosed a= pplication. That means we can take one of two approaches:

=C2=A0

1. Assume th= at the IPR covers a substantial portion of the draft

2. Wait and see<= u>

= =C2=A0

I= n the first case we have to decide whether we want to go ahead with this wo= rk on that assumption and in the knowledge of the licensing terms. The alte= rnatives 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 regard= less deciding that we are willing to live with the disclosure=

=C2=A0<= u>

In the s= econd case we would delay progression until we can see the IPR and decide w= hat to do. The alternative would then be exactly the same a, b, and c as ab= ove.

=C2=A0

It might be pragmatic to continue to work on the current draft. T= hat 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, h= owever, 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 tha= t any consensus was reached with respect to the IPR and it must be understo= od that the discussion was deferred not concluded. Future arguments that &q= uot;we have invested so much time and effort" will not carry water!=

= =C2=A0

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.<= /p>

=C2=A0

Cheers,

Adrian=

= =C2=A0

=C2=A0

From: rtgwg [mailto:rtgwg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Chris Bowers
Se= nt: 20 October 2016 16:11
To: rtgwg@ietf.org; rtg-bfd@ietf.org
Subject: RE: WG adoption= poll on draft-nitish-vrrp-bfd-04

=

=C2=A0

RTGWG,

=C2=A0

At this point, I don=E2=80=99t think t= hat there is a consensus for the working group to adopt this draft <= u>

without mor= e discussion of the issue raised by Loa Andersson and Adrian Farrel in the<= u>

foll= owing two emails.

=C2=A0

https://www.iet= f.org/mail-archive/web/rtgwg/current/msg05718.html<= /u>

=C2=A0<= u>

The main ob= jection raised in these two emails is that the working group should work on=

so= lutions that are either unencumbered by IPR or that are available on free-t= o-implementers

terms.=C2=A0=C2=A0 Loa and Adrian also point out that the curren= t lack of visibility to the patent

application covered by the IPR disclosure f= or this draft means that it is currently not possible to

evaluate this situati= on with respect to this draft.

=C2=A0

The reason for the IPR disclosure process i= s to allow working groups to take into consideration

the potential licensing of= IPR when evaluating alternative technical solutions.=C2=A0 At this point, =

ado= pting draft-nitish-vrrp-bfd-04 as the basis for work on standardizing the u= se of VRRP

with BFD without more discussion of this issue would imply that the= re is consensus that

the working group should not take potential licensing of = IPR into account for this work.

I don=E2=80=99t think there is currently consen= sus for this.

=C2=A0

= I encourage further discussion of this issue. I think that the= re may be the potential to

reach a consensus if the working group can come to a= n explicit agreement about whether

or not potential licensing of IPR should be = taken into account when evaluating alternative

technologies for this work.<= /u>

=C2=A0<= u>

Chri= s

= =C2=A0

_____________________________________________
From: Chris= Bowers
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2016 10:44 AM
To: 'rtgwg@ietf.org' <rtgwg@ietf.= org>; rtg-bfd@= ietf.org
Subject: WG adoption poll on draft-nitish-vrrp-bfd-0= 4

= =C2=A0

=C2=A0

RTGWG,

=C2=A0

<= span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-s= erif"">This email starts a two week poll to gauge consensus on adoptin= g draft-nitish-vrrp-bfd-04

as an RTGWG working group document.

=C2=A0=

The BFD working g= roup is also copied on this adoption poll.=C2=A0 We encourage participants = in

BFD working group to provide their input on the adoption poll.=C2=A0 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 i= n that WG in the development

of this document.

=C2=A0

Please send your comments to t= he RTGWG mailing list (= rtgwg@ietf.org) indicating support=

or= opposition to the adoption of this document, along with the reasoning for = that support

or opposition.=C2=A0

=C2=A0

If you are listed as a document author or co= ntributor, please respond to this email stating

whether or not you are aware of= any relevant IPR.=C2=A0=C2=A0 The response needs to be sent to the =

RTGWG mail= ing 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 t= o the document.

<= span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-s= erif"">=C2=A0

At this point, the document has the following IPR disclosure= associated with it.

=C2=A0

This adoption poll will end on Friday October 14th.

=C2=A0

=

Thanks,=

Chris and Jeff=

=C2=A0=

=C2=A0<= /u>


______________= _________________________________
rtgwg mailing list
rtgwg@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg


--001a11371910e8097d053fdcdd94-- From nobody Thu Oct 27 12:02:38 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BF841296CF; Thu, 27 Oct 2016 12:02:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.332 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.332 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.431, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HWa14oXRxDYs; Thu, 27 Oct 2016 12:02:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from slice.pfrc.org (slice.pfrc.org [67.207.130.108]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF1201296D7; Thu, 27 Oct 2016 12:02:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dresden.attlocal.net (99-59-193-67.lightspeed.livnmi.sbcglobal.net [99.59.193.67]) by slice.pfrc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 871BF1E1F0; Thu, 27 Oct 2016 15:04:25 -0400 (EDT) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_CD8791AA-AA14-484E-832F-55B1853C6728" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.0 \(3226\)) Subject: Re: WG adoption poll on draft-nitish-vrrp-bfd-04 From: Jeffrey Haas In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2016 15:02:00 -0400 Message-Id: References: <060701d22f94$10b924c0$322b6e40$@olddog.co.uk> To: Greg Mirsky X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3226) Archived-At: Cc: "rtg-bfd@ietf.org" , "rtgwg@ietf.org" X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: "RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2016 19:02:36 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_CD8791AA-AA14-484E-832F-55B1853C6728 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 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 = wrote: >=20 > Dear All, > to the best of my knowledge and understanding the disclosed IPR may be = relevant only to Section 4.=20 >=20 > Regards, > Greg >=20 > On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 7:20 AM, Adrian Farrel > wrote: > It might (or might not :-) help if I give some clarification of my = position on this draft. >=20 > [I'm not trying to tell the chairs how to do their job!] >=20 > =20 >=20 > 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: >=20 > =20 >=20 > 1. Assume that the IPR covers a substantial portion of the draft >=20 > 2. Wait and see >=20 > =20 >=20 > 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: >=20 > a. Abandon the work >=20 > b. Re-invent the solution to avoid the IPR (which necessarily involves = waiting until we can read it) >=20 > c. Carry on regardless deciding that we are willing to live with the = disclosure >=20 > =20 >=20 > 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. >=20 > =20 >=20 > 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! >=20 > =20 >=20 > 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. >=20 > =20 >=20 > Cheers, >=20 > Adrian >=20 > =20 >=20 > =20 >=20 > From: rtgwg [mailto:rtgwg-bounces@ietf.org = ] On Behalf Of Chris Bowers > Sent: 20 October 2016 16:11 > To: rtgwg@ietf.org ; rtg-bfd@ietf.org = > Subject: RE: WG adoption poll on draft-nitish-vrrp-bfd-04 >=20 > =20 >=20 > RTGWG, >=20 > =20 >=20 > At this point, I don=E2=80=99t think that there is a consensus for the = working group to adopt this draft >=20 > without more discussion of the issue raised by Loa Andersson and = Adrian Farrel in the >=20 > following two emails. >=20 > =20 >=20 > https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtgwg/current/msg05712.html = > https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtgwg/current/msg05718.html = > =20 >=20 > The main objection raised in these two emails is that the working = group should work on >=20 > solutions that are either unencumbered by IPR or that are available on = free-to-implementers >=20 > terms. Loa and Adrian also point out that the current lack of = visibility to the patent >=20 > application covered by the IPR disclosure for this draft means that it = is currently not possible to >=20 > evaluate this situation with respect to this draft. >=20 > =20 >=20 > The reason for the IPR disclosure process is to allow working groups = to take into consideration >=20 > the potential licensing of IPR when evaluating alternative technical = solutions. At this point, >=20 > adopting draft-nitish-vrrp-bfd-04 as the basis for work on = standardizing the use of VRRP >=20 > with BFD without more discussion of this issue would imply that there = is consensus that >=20 > the working group should not take potential licensing of IPR into = account for this work. >=20 > I don=E2=80=99t think there is currently consensus for this. >=20 > =20 >=20 > I encourage further discussion of this issue. I think that there may = be the potential to >=20 > reach a consensus if the working group can come to an explicit = agreement about whether >=20 > or not potential licensing of IPR should be taken into account when = evaluating alternative >=20 > technologies for this work. >=20 > =20 >=20 > Chris >=20 > =20 >=20 > _____________________________________________ > From: Chris Bowers=20 > Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2016 10:44 AM > To: 'rtgwg@ietf.org ' >; rtg-bfd@ietf.org > Subject: WG adoption poll on draft-nitish-vrrp-bfd-04 >=20 > =20 >=20 > =20 >=20 > RTGWG, >=20 > =20 >=20 > This email starts a two week poll to gauge consensus on adopting = draft-nitish-vrrp-bfd-04 >=20 > as an RTGWG working group document. >=20 > =20 >=20 > The BFD working group is also copied on this adoption poll. We = encourage participants in >=20 > BFD working group to provide their input on the adoption poll. And = should this document >=20 > be adopted as an RTGWG document, we would plan to copy the BFD WG on = emails >=20 > related to this document to benefit from the BFD expertise in that WG = in the development >=20 > of this document. >=20 > =20 >=20 > Please send your comments to the RTGWG mailing list (rtgwg@ietf.org = ) indicating support >=20 > or opposition to the adoption of this document, along with the = reasoning for that support >=20 > or opposition.=20 >=20 > =20 >=20 > If you are listed as a document author or contributor, please respond = to this email stating >=20 > whether or not you are aware of any relevant IPR. The response needs = to be sent to the >=20 > RTGWG mailing list. The document will not advance to the next stage = until a response has >=20 > been received from each author and each individual that has = contributed to the document. >=20 > =20 >=20 > At this point, the document has the following IPR disclosure = associated with it. >=20 > https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2739/ = > =20 >=20 > This adoption poll will end on Friday October 14th. >=20 > =20 >=20 > Thanks, >=20 > Chris and Jeff >=20 > =20 >=20 > =20 >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > rtgwg mailing list > rtgwg@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg = >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > rtgwg mailing list > rtgwg@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg --Apple-Mail=_CD8791AA-AA14-484E-832F-55B1853C6728 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 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 <gregimirsky@gmail.com> 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 <adrian@olddog.co.uk> 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:rtgwg-bounces@ietf.org] = On Behalf Of Chris Bowers
Sent: 20 October 2016 16:11
To: rtgwg@ietf.org; rtg-bfd@ietf.org
Subject: RE: WG adoption poll on = draft-nitish-vrrp-bfd-04

 

RTGWG,

 

At this point, I don=E2=80=99t 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/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=E2=80=99t 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: 'rtgwg@ietf.org' <rtgwg@ietf.org>; rtg-bfd@ietf.org
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 = (rtgwg@ietf.org) 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/

 

This adoption poll will end on Friday October = 14th.

 

Thanks,

Chris and Jeff

 

 


_______________________________________________
rtgwg mailing list
rtgwg@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg


_______________________________________________
rtgwg = mailing list
rtgwg@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg

= --Apple-Mail=_CD8791AA-AA14-484E-832F-55B1853C6728--