Subject: [OPSAWG] Untangling - Explicit call for IPR on draft-ietf-opsawg-tacacs-00

From: Warren Kumari <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2016 18:46:37 +0000

Dear WG,

Thanks to everyone who has been participating. It is refreshing to see this
much passion and involvement in OpsAWG! We wanted to give this a bit of
time to settle down, and also to see where this ended up.

We are going to do a series of steps to get as clear a view of the
consensus of the WG about this document.   This message is a explicit call
for any known IPR.

We will follow up with two  other messages, each with a particular question
- the reason for such formality is to try to untangle the many threads that
erupted on the main list.

Many of you have already expressed your opinion but can you please do so
again in response to the forthcoming two messages so that the record is
clear.  We expect to determine the path forward in 2 weeks.

Are you personally aware of any IPR that applies to
draft-ietf-opsawg-tacacs?  If so, has this IPR been disclosed in compliance
with IETF IPR rules?
(See RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669, and 5378 for more details.)

If you are a document author or listed contributor on this document, please
reply to this email regardless of whether or not you are personally aware
of any relevant IPR.

Scott, Tianran and Warren

---

From: Warren Kumari <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 2016 21:55:03 +0000

Dear WG (and specifically draft-ietf-opsawg-tacacs authors),

So far we have received an IPR acknowledgment from Douglas (
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/FLI-7qqaD3AbArBKM42iNRiMxq8) ,
but are still missing it from the rest of the authors: Thorsten
Dahm, Andrej Ota, David Carrel, Lol Grant.

Please reply to this email regardless of whether or not you are personally
aware of any relevant IPR...

(I have just noticed that David and Lol do not have email addresses
listed. Thorsten
said that he spoke with them (recording from Prague) - please add their
email addresses - they will need to ack the IPR, and also the AUTH48 if /
when it happens...)

W

On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 7:46 AM Warren Kumari <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Dear WG,
>
> Thanks to everyone who has been participating. It is refreshing to see
> this much passion and involvement in OpsAWG! We wanted to give this a bit
> of time to settle down, and also to see where this ended up.
>
> We will follow up with two  other messages, each with a particular
> question - the reason for such formality is to try to untangle the many
> threads that erupted on the main list.
>
> If you are a document author or listed contributor on this document,
> please reply to this email regardless of whether or not you are personally
> aware of any relevant IPR.
>

---

From: Andrej Ota <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2016 17:15:46 +0000

I'm am double checking with in-house IPR legal.

I have also sent off e-mails to David Carrel and Lol Grant so they know
about the call.

On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 9:55 PM, Warren Kumari <[email-masked]> wrote:

> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/FLI-7qqaD3AbArBKM42iNRiMxq8)
> , but are still missing it from the rest of the authors: Thorsten
> listed. Thorsten said that he spoke with them (recording from Prague) -
> please add their email addresses - they will need to ack the IPR, and also
> the AUTH48 if / when it happens...)
>
> W
>
>

-- 
--
Andrej Ota

Google Ireland Ltd., Google Docks, Barrow St., Dublin 4, Ireland
Registered in Dublin, Ireland -  Registration # 368047

---

From: Warren Kumari <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2016 17:38:13 +0000

It is now almost 2 weeks since we asked for explicit IPR ACKs from all the
authors.

We have only received one.

The document starts out with:
"This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79"

The explicit IPR check should simply be affirming the above.

None of the authors should be "surprised" authors (2 of the authors have
been very active, and it has been stated that David and Lol were contacted
and checked).

Frankly I'm starting to lose my sense of humor on this...

W

On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 12:15 PM Andrej Ota <[email-masked]> wrote:

>> Please reply to this email regardless of whether or not you are
>> personally aware of any relevant IPR...
>>

---

From: Andrej Ota <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2016 17:55:58 +0000

As a coauthor, I am not aware of any IPR related to the submitted internet
draft.

I did contact David and Lol and I will politely contact them again so they
can ack/nack as well.

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 5:38 PM, Warren Kumari <[email-masked]> wrote:

>>>> Many of you have already expressed your opinion but can you please do
>>>> so again in response to the forthcoming two messages so that the record is

-- 
--
Andrej Ota

---

From: "Scott O. Bradner" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2016 16:29:19 -0500

thanks

Scott

> On Feb 26, 2016, at 12:55 PM, Andrej Ota <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> As a coauthor, I am not aware of any IPR related to the submitted internet draft.
> 
> 
> I did contact David and Lol and I will politely contact them again so they can ack/nack as well.
> 
> It is now almost 2 weeks since we asked for explicit IPR ACKs from all the authors. 
> 
> None of the authors should be "surprised" authors (2 of the authors have been very active, and it has been stated that David and Lol were contacted and checked). 
> 
> I have also sent off e-mails to David Carrel and Lol Grant so they know about the call.
> 
> So far we have received an IPR acknowledgment from Douglas (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/FLI-7qqaD3AbArBKM42iNRiMxq8) , but are still missing it from the rest of the authors: Thorsten Dahm, Andrej Ota, David Carrel, Lol Grant.
> 
> Please reply to this email regardless of whether or not you are personally aware of any relevant IPR...
> 
> (I have just noticed that David and Lol do not have email addresses listed. Thorsten said that he spoke with them (recording from Prague) - please add their email addresses - they will need to ack the IPR, and also the AUTH48 if / when it happens...)
> 
> W
> 
> 
> Thanks to everyone who has been participating. It is refreshing to see this much passion and involvement in OpsAWG! We wanted to give this a bit of time to settle down, and also to see where this ended up.
> 
> We are going to do a series of steps to get as clear a view of the consensus of the WG about this document.   This message is a explicit call for any known IPR. 
> 
> We will follow up with two  other messages, each with a particular question - the reason for such formality is to try to untangle the many threads that erupted on the main list.
> 
> Many of you have already expressed your opinion but can you please do so again in response to the forthcoming two messages so that the record is clear.  We expect to determine the path forward in 2 weeks.
> 
> Are you personally aware of any IPR that applies to draft-ietf-opsawg-tacacs?  If so, has this IPR been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules?
> If you are a document author or listed contributor on this document, please reply to this email regardless of whether or not you are personally aware of any relevant IPR.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> OPSAWG mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg

---

From: Andrej Ota <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2016 21:52:42 +0000

I received the following statement from David Carrel:

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: David Carrel <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 6:41 PM
Subject: Re: IETF explicit call for IPR (related to TACACS+ IETF draft)
To: Andrej Ota <[email-masked]>, Lol Grant <[email-masked]>
Cc: Thorsten Dahm <[email-masked]>, "Gash, Douglas" <
[email-masked]>

Hi Andrej,

I know of no IPR related to TACACS+ and/or draft-grant-tacacs-02 and/or
draft-ietf-opsawg-tacacs.  I cannot speak for cisco (my former employer),
but I do speak for myself.

I hope this statement is what you need.  If you need something more, please
let me know.

Thanks

David Carrel

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 5:55 PM, Andrej Ota <[email-masked]> wrote:

>>>> listed. Thorsten said that he spoke with them (recording from Prague)
>>>> - please add their email addresses - they will need to ack the IPR, and
>>>> also the AUTH48 if / when it happens...)
>>>>
>>>> W
>>>>
>>>>

-- 
--
Andrej Ota

---

From: Andrej Ota <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2016 21:55:19 +0000

Below is the copy of the statement I received from Lol Grant.

I believe we're now only one statement short and Thorsten should be back
on-line on Monday at latest.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Lol Grant <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 9:40 PM
Subject: Re: IETF explicit call for IPR (related to TACACS+ IETF draft)
To: Andrej Ota <[email-masked]>
Cc: David Carrel <[email-masked]>, Thorsten Dahm <[email-masked]>,
"Gash, Douglas" <[email-masked]>

Hi Andrej,

I know of no IPR related to TACACS+ and/or draft-grant-tacacs-02.

Like Dave, I can speak only for myself, not for Cisco.

Best wishes,

Lol Grant

-- 
--
Andrej Ota

---

From: Warren Kumari <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2016 22:02:09 +0000

Awesome, thank you.

W

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 4:55 PM Andrej Ota <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Cc: David Carrel <[email-masked]>, Thorsten Dahm <
> [email-masked]>, "Gash, Douglas" <[email-masked]>
>
>
> Hi Andrej,
>
>>>>>> Thanks to everyone who has been participating. It is refreshing to
>>>>>> see this much passion and involvement in OpsAWG! We wanted to give this a
>>>>>> bit of time to settle down, and also to see where this ended up.
>>>>>>

---

From: Thorsten Dahm <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2016 17:58:17 +0000

Regards,
Thorsten

-- 
Thorsten Dahm

Network Engineer
Google Ireland Ltd.
The Gasworks, Barrow Street
Dublin 4,  Ireland

Registered in Dublin, Ireland
Registration Number: 368047