Subject: [radext] Where are we with bigger-packets

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 02 Jul 2015 20:27:17 -0400

I want to confirm the chairs aren't waiting for anything from me.
my recollection is that I'm waiting on a write-up?

--Sam

---

From: Stefan Winter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 03 Jul 2015 10:02:11 +0200

Hello,

> my recollection is that I'm waiting on a write-up?

That's by and large correct. There was a WGLC on the -03 version
starting 31 March 2015. It had no comments on the text, only a few "I
support adoption" (which was not asked asked for at that moment in time).

Since there were no comments worth discussing during WGLC, we are now in
principle ready for advancement to Shepherd write-up and IETF Last Call.

There is one bit missing, which will need to be part of the Write-up and
was asked for in the WGLC:

Sam, as the only author of this draft, could you replay to this question
as raised in the WGLC announcement mail:

"In addition, following the strategy for promoting compliance with the
IPR disclosure rules (RFC6702), the chairs would like to check  whether
there are claims of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) on the document
that need to be disclosed. Therefore, the following questions are
addressed to the WG and Especially Authors and Contributors of the draft:

Are you personally aware of any IPR that applies to
draft-ietf-radext-bigger-packets-03? 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 message regardless of whether or not you are
personally aware of any relevant IPR.  We might not be able to advance
this document to the next stage until we have received a reply from each
author and listed contributor."

Thanks,

Stefan Winter

-- 
Stefan WINTER
Ingenieur de Recherche
Fondation RESTENA - Réseau Téléinformatique de l'Education Nationale et
de la Recherche
6, rue Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi
L-1359 Luxembourg

Tel: +352 424409 1
Fax: +352 422473

PGP key updated to 4096 Bit RSA - I will encrypt all mails if the
recipient's key is known to me

http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xC0DE6A358A39DC66

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 03 Jul 2015 14:57:18 -0400

>>>>> "Stefan" == Stefan Winter <[email-masked]> writes:

    Stefan> There is one bit missing, which will need to be part of the
    Stefan> Write-up and was asked for in the WGLC:

    Stefan> Sam, as the only author of this draft, could you replay to
    Stefan> this question as raised in the WGLC announcement mail:

    Stefan> "In addition, following the strategy for promoting
    Stefan> compliance with the IPR disclosure rules (RFC6702), the
    Stefan> chairs would like to check whether there are claims of
    Stefan> Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) on the document that need
    Stefan> to be disclosed. Therefore, the following questions are
    Stefan> addressed to the WG and Especially Authors and Contributors
    Stefan> of the draft:

    Stefan> Are you personally aware of any IPR that applies to
    Stefan> draft-ietf-radext-bigger-packets-03? If so, has this IPR
    Stefan> been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules?  (See RFCs
    Stefan> 3979, 4879, 3669, and 5378 for more details.)

The question you asked requests significantly more information than is
consistent with our IPR policies.  Especially for this draft this is
 a matter of principle, but I'd be comfortable with a formulation that
 distinguished information authors are required under policy to provide
 from information they are encouraged to provide.  One of the most
 obvious cases where authors are not required to disclose all IPR they
 are aware of is IPR that is conditionally infringed depending on
 implementation choices.

I'll say that under our policy, I am required to file 0 disclosures and
all 0 of them have been filed.

I'd also like to draw your attention to a note I sent a while back
regarding content we want to call out in the proto writeup.
This document registers RADIUS packet type codes which require IESG
approval to register.
So I sent the following note to the list:

--------------------

Hi.
I realize we are far away from a shepherd writeup, but I wanted to bring
up this issue now.

The RADIUS packet type codes registry requires IESG approval to
register.
My recommendation is that during IETF last call we explicitly call out
the request to the IESG to approve the registration/call out to the
community that the IESG is evaluating such a registration.
I think that should be sufficient for an experimental document to make
this allocation.

It's already in the abstract and intro and IANA considerations text.

---

From: Stefan Winter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2015 10:28:06 +0200

Hello,

>  are aware of is IPR that is conditionally infringed depending on

The question used the suggestion wording of RFC6702, Appendix A.4. Even
if it is not formally required to use that wording, I for one consider
this a "sane default". If you don't like that formulation, the best way
forward would probably be to rev RFC6702.

> all 0 of them have been filed.

Thank you.

> So I sent the following note to the list:

I'll keep this in mind for the shepherd writeup.

Greetings,

Stefan Winter

Tel: +352 424409 1
Fax: +352 422473