Subject: [dtn] New document acceptance

From: Rick Taylor <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2018 13:41:16 +0000

Hi All,

At IETF 101 London, the authors of the following documents request WG
acceptance:

 * Asynchronous Management Architecture: draft-birrane-dtn-ama

 * BPSec Interoperability Cipher Suites: draft-birrane-dtn-bpsec-
interop-cs

Both of these documents match work items in the charter.  I believe
there is rough consensus on their acceptance.

Please comment promptly if you do *not* believe these documents are not
valuable work for the WG, otherwise they will be accepted.

Cheers,

Rick

---

From: Rick Taylor <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2018 13:51:08 +0000

Correction:

"Please comment promptly if you do *not* believe these documents are
valuable work for the WG"

I.e. silence == acceptance

Rick

On Thu, 2018-04-12 at 13:41 +0000, Rick Taylor wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> dtn mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dtn

---

From: Rick Taylor <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2018 15:41:59 +0000

Hi All,

As a point of clarification: each document is to be assessed for WG
adoption independently, there is no interdependence.

Also, if you are in favour of adoption, please feel free to comment as
well.  I did not intend to imply that the adoption of these documents
was a 'done deal'.

For those of you interested in the process of working group adoption,
please consult RFC 7221.

Cheers,

Rick

---

From: "R. Atkinson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2018 16:08:53 -0400

A couple of clarification questions.

1. Does anyone in the WG know of any IPR issues (e.g. patent claims,
claims of patents pending, plans to file patents) with either of the drafts ?

2.Are all of the draft authors agreeable to hand change control of each 
draft over to the WG ?

Ran

---

From: "Burleigh, Scott C (312B)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2018 21:45:35 +0000

Ran, I know of no IPR issues with the bpbis draft, and I (at least) have no objection to the WG taking on change control of that draft.

Scott

-----Original Message-----
From: dtn <[email-masked]> On Behalf Of R. Atkinson
Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2018 1:09 PM
To: Rick Taylor <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [dtn] New document acceptance

1. Does anyone in the WG know of any IPR issues (e.g. patent claims, claims of patents pending, plans to file patents) with either of the drafts ?

2.Are all of the draft authors agreeable to hand change control of each draft over to the WG ?

Ran

---

From: "Marc Blanchet" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2018 20:37:41 -0400

> claims of patents pending, plans to file patents) with either of the 

while this is an appropriate question, the answer is not needed at this 
time but when the document is sent to IESG for publication.

Marc.

---

From: Stan Ratliff <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2018 21:11:15 -0400

A comment inline.

> On Apr 12, 2018, at 8:37 PM, Marc Blanchet <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> while this is an appropriate question, the answer is not needed at this time but when the document is sent to IESG for publication.
> 
> Marc.

I respectfully disagree. I would want to know if there’s any pending IPR claim before the WG puts in the effort - at least that would be one of the things to consider.

Regards,
Stan

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2018 09:30:22 +0100

On 13/04/18 02:11, Stan Ratliff wrote:
>>> 1. Does anyone in the WG know of any IPR issues (e.g. patent
>>> claims, claims of patents pending, plans to file patents) with
>>> either of the drafts ?
>> 
>> while this is an appropriate question, the answer is not needed at
>> this time but when the document is sent to IESG for publication.
>> 
>> Marc.
> 
> I respectfully disagree. I would want to know if there’s any pending
> IPR claim before the WG puts in the effort - at least that would be
> one of the things to consider.

I agree. There's an onus on anyone who personally knows of IPR to
ensure the IETF are aware of that in a timely fashion. The IPR check
before sending a document to the IESG is designed as a confirmation,
at the end of the process, that things were done correctly and is
not at all designed to be the "time to declare."

S.

> Regards, Stan
>>> _______________________________________________ dtn mailing list 
>>> [email-masked] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dtn
>> 
>> _______________________________________________ dtn mailing list 
>> [email-masked] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dtn
> 
> _______________________________________________ dtn mailing list 
> [email-masked] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dtn
>

---

From: Rick Taylor <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2018 12:46:10 +0000

Comments inline...

> not at all designed to be the "time to declare."

As Stan and Stephen point out correctly, the process is detailed in RFC
7221, Section 2, including IPR check prior to adoption.

I know I have appeared to play 'fast and loose' with the process here,
but off-line I have spoken to the authors of both documents concerning
IPR, and both documents were specifically written to address issues
with the progress of other documents already adopted by the WG, and
neither author has declared any IPR. (Thank you Scott for confirming on
the list).

What I am seeking to obtain is the working group rough consensus to
adopt these documents, and currently I have seen one +1, and no -1's,
but the window is definitely still open.

Cheers,

Rick

---

From: "Birrane, Edward J." <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2018 14:50:08 +0000

For both "draft-birrane-dtn-bpsec-interop-cs-01" and "draft-birrane-dtn-ama-06"

- I am unaware of any IPR issues as discussed in RFC7221 section 2.1.2 and RFC6702 section 3.2.

- I am agreeable with the transference of change control as discussed in RFC7221 section 2.1.1

-Ed

---
Edward J. Birrane, III, Ph.D.
Embedded Applications Group Supervisor
Space Exploration Sector
Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory
(W) 443-778-7423 / (F) 443-228-3839

> From: dtn [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of R. Atkinson
> Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2018 4:09 PM
> To: Rick Taylor
> Cc: [email-masked]
> 1. Does anyone in the WG know of any IPR issues (e.g. patent claims, claims
> of patents pending, plans to file patents) with either of the drafts ?
>

---

From: "R. Atkinson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2018 16:55:24 -0400

> On Apr 12, 2018, at 20:37, Marc Blanchet <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> 
> 

Marc,

It is appropriate to ask anytime.  

As an example, if there were/are IPR issues, then the WG might choose
to take a different approach from the start.

Cheers,

Ran