Subject: [sfc] WG Last Call for SFC Problem Statement

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 02 May 2014 16:56:11 -0400

This note begins a 2-week WG Last Call on
draft-ietf-sfc-problem-statement-05.txt. 

There is one outstanding issue that remains, but we can use the LC to
clarify what the WG wants to do.

Section 3 contains a description that explains the general approach
SFC will use as a solution. There was a request to remove that section
back in January, but there was no consensus to do so. Indeed, there
was also significant support to leave it in, and that does not appear
to have changed.

The request came up again in the context of the IPR disclosure
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?option=document_search&id=draft-ietf-sfc-problem-statement);
see my comments on that thread. While we can remove Section 3 in the
hope that it mitigates the IPR concern, doing so would seem to have
little (if any) practical benefit w.r.t. IPR. It is, of course,
however the WG's decision as to the dispostion of Section 3.

Substantive comments to the list please, editorial comments can go
directly to the authors.

Thomas & Jim

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 May 2014 09:08:43 +0200

Hi Thomas,

See inline.

Cheers,
Med

>-----Message d'origine-----
>De : sfc [mailto:[email-masked]] De la part de Thomas Narten
>Envoyé : vendredi 2 mai 2014 22:56
>À : [email-masked]
>Objet : [sfc] WG Last Call for SFC Problem Statement
>

[Med] There is also this one: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sfc/current/msg01772.html.

>was also significant support to leave it in,

[Med] As far as I know there is no such discussion since the adoption of the document as a WG item other than the one I initiated. 

 and that does not appear
>little (if any) practical benefit w.r.t. IPR.

[Med] That's not the point. The point is to have a PS document that is solution neutral. Claiming an IPR on a document that is supposed to be a PS document means that document does not only discuss problem but includes also solutions. 

 It is, of course,
>_______________________________________________
>sfc mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sfc