Subject: [bess] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-bess-spbm-evpn-01: (with COMMENT)

From: "Alissa Cooper" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2015 09:15:20 -0700

Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-bess-spbm-evpn-01: No Objection

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

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

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-spbm-evpn/

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

Was there WG discussion of https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2085/ and
whether to proceed? The shepherd write-up doesn't say.

---

From: Martin Vigoureux <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2015 12:15:21 +0200

Hello Alissa,

thank you.
Regarding your comment, I searched a bit in the archives.
The IPR disclosure (05/2013) announcement has apparently only been sent 
to ipr-announce. I hasn't been sent to the L2VPN list.
The Chairs of the L2VPN WG did poll the list for any undisclosed IPR at 
the time of the WG LC (10/2014).
But in short I could not find any specific discussion on the disclosure 
within L2VPN (and there has not been any in BESS which inherited of the 
doc post WGLC).

Regards,
Martin

---

From: Loa Andersson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2015 18:49:35 +0800

All,

This is the second time I see questions from ADs on "discussion on IPR
disclosures".

As far as I understand this requirement on discussion on IPRs is new
and potentially dangerous.

First and most basic - working *can't* discuss the validity of an IPR
disclosure.

Potential discussion could be held on whether we will proceed regardless
of an existing IPR disclosure.

The operational mode of most working groups are to make the existence of
an IPR disclosure know to the working group in working group adoption 
polls, working group last calls and in other postings . WG members can
then check the disclosure.

If the IPR disclosure says "we will bleed you dry if you try to
implement this standard" that might be a reason to notify the list
that it might be a bad idea to go ahead with this standard in this way.

However, most IPR disclosures gives very reasonable conditions for use
in implementations of IETF standrds- Once this is verified there is not
much to discuss.

Exactly what are we susposed to "discuss"?

/Loa

On 2015-09-29 18:15, Martin Vigoureux wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> BESS mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

---

From: Alissa Cooper <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2015 05:59:47 -0700

Hi Loa,

> an IPR disclosure know to the working group in working group adoption polls, working group last calls and in other postings . WG members can

Yep, I was wondering if the above happened. Martin confirmed that it did not.

Alissa

---

From: David Allan I <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2015 13:35:01 +0000

For my reference (and ensuring if this comes up again we get it right), what part broke down here? 

I made sure we filed the disclosure, is it also my job to make sure it is announced on the appropriate WG lists?

Thanks
Dave

-----Original Message-----
From: Martin Vigoureux [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2015 3:15 AM
To: Alissa Cooper; The IESG
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-bess-spbm-evpn-01: (with COMMENT)

Hello Alissa,

thank you.
Regarding your comment, I searched a bit in the archives.
The IPR disclosure (05/2013) announcement has apparently only been sent to ipr-announce. I hasn't been sent to the L2VPN list.
The Chairs of the L2VPN WG did poll the list for any undisclosed IPR at the time of the WG LC (10/2014).
But in short I could not find any specific discussion on the disclosure within L2VPN (and there has not been any in BESS which inherited of the doc post WGLC).

Regards,
Martin

Le 28/09/2015 18:15, Alissa Cooper a écrit :
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut 
> this introductory paragraph, however.)
>
>
> Please refer to 
> https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html

---

From: Martin Vigoureux <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2015 15:46:07 +0200

Dave,

I can't tell but what surprised me is that the disclosure announcement 
was not automatically sent to L2VPN.
Usually the distribution list (TO & CC) is quite wide, but it was not 
the case for that draft.

-m

---

From: Martin Vigoureux <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2015 17:10:13 +0200

Just for information, the authors (3 out of 4) have answered that they 
were not aware of any *undisclosed* IPR, which somehow implies that some 
had already been disclosed.

-m

---

From: Jeff Tantsura <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2015 18:03:03 +0000

Hi Martin,

Yes, indeed, https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2085/

Cheers,
Jeff

-----Original Message-----
From: Martin Vigoureux <[email-masked]>
Date: Tuesday, September 29, 2015 at 8:10 AM
To: Alissa Cooper <[email-masked]>, Loa Andersson <[email-masked]>
Cc: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, IESG <[email-masked]>,
"[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]"
<[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [bess] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on
draft-ietf-bess-spbm-evpn-01: (with COMMENT)

---

From: Loa Andersson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 02:23:03 +0800

Alissa,

Sent from my iPad

> On 29 Sep 2015, at 20:59, Alissa Cooper <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Loa,
> 
>> 

Not entirely true, I checked the IPR disclosure. Found that it was acceptable and
Found no reason (according to how we handled these things up to now) to say
anything on the list. 

If we want to make a change in practice, we should at least find something that
works as well as "silence is consent".  A few mails, resulting from a normal IPR
disclosure, does not improve anything.

/Loa

---

From: Alissa Cooper <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2015 11:48:55 -0700

Hi Loa,

> 
> If we want to make a change in practice,

I never suggested a change in practice. I asked a question. Martin kindly answered it, although he didn’t have to, as it was in a non-blocking comment.

Alissa

> we should at least find something that

---

From: Loa Andersson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 09:46:55 +0800

Alissa,

On 2015-09-30 02:48, Alissa Cooper wrote:
> I never suggested a change in practice. I asked a question.

Yeah you are right, I might have been over interpreting your question
in the context of having this type of question raised for the second
time in within a week. I inferred that IESG or at least some ADs that
treated this in a new and that we were at risk losing the rather
precarious balance we have between "making wg's aware of" and "not
discussing" the validity of IPR disclosures.

You were of course right asking the question.
Martin kindly answered it, although he didn’t have to, as it was in a 
non-blocking comment.

You were of course right asking the question. But I'm not sure I agree
with your evaluation of Martin's answer.

The way I see this work is that we ask all authors/contributors
(sometimes we have been criticized of making the group we requite
answer from too big) respond to a question on if they are aware of IPRs
on the mailing list. The entire wg see these responses and the question
it is within days followed by an adoption poll or wglc (stating whether
there are IPRs on this document or not. My take is that anyone that
support the adoption or makes comments during wglc are aware of the IPR
and also agree to proceed; that is what adoption poll or wglc is all
about, right?

This is true for the document Martin responded for also, no explicit
discussion (not needed) but in the context of the working group being
made aware of IPR disclosures.

/Loa
make