Subject: Review of draft-ietf-pals-mpls-tp-dual-homing-protection-05

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2017 10:13:20 -0800

Reviewer: Russ Housley
Review result: Ready

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please wait for direction from your
document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft.

For more information, please see the FAQ at
<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Document: draft-ietf-pals-mpls-tp-dual-homing-protection-05
Reviewer: Russ Housley
Review Date: 2017-02-07
IETF LC End Date: 2017-02-13
IESG Telechat date: 2017-03-02

Summary: Ready

Major Concerns:  None

Minor Concerns:  None

Nits:

In the last sentence of the first paragraph of Section 1, the
document
says: "This mechanism is only applicable ..."  I believe that this is
a reference to the repair mechanism that is defined in
[I-D.ietf-pals-endpoint-fast-protection], not the mechanism that is
defined in this document.  Please replace "This mechanism" with a
clear reference.

Notes:

I see that draft-cheng-pwe3-mpls-tp-dual-homing-protection the
earlier
Internet-Draft file name for this document.  An IPR declaration was
issued against that earlier name.  The shepherd write-up indicates
that
"The WG were not concerned about the IPR disclosure." However, it is
unclear to me whether we should ask for the IPR declaration to be
issued
against the current Internet-Draft file name.

---

From: Stewart Bryant <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2017 18:53:36 +0000

Hi Russ

Thank you for the review.

> against the current Internet-Draft file name.

The authors all responded including of course the author from the 
company that
filed the IPR. All indicated that no additional IPR was known about.

The IPR disclosure shows up in datatracker.

We do not normally chase companies to update their IPR disclosures, as
documents progress, and indeed if we chase them to do this update we need
to chase them shortly for a further one as the draft becomes an RFC.

Since you pointed it out we have asked the author to ask his patent dept
to do the update, but I hope that this does not become an IETF policy
making it even harder to pass the IPR checks that we put in place in RTG.

Thanks

Stewart