Subject: [sidr] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-algs-16: (with COMMENT)

From: "Mirja Kuehlewind" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2016 05:34:27 -0800

Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-algs-16: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-algs/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Just a thought: Would it be useful to add an IESG note saying something
like in the sheperd write-up:
 "[...] there are published references
    that preceded the filing of the patent, especially those 
    mentioned in RFC6090.  RFC6090 notes that its descriptions
    "may be useful for implementing the fundamental algorithms without 
    using any of the  specialized methods that were developed in 
    following years.""
I know we usuall don't do things like this. But I'm wondering how someone
who wants to implement this should figure this out otherwise....?

---

From: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2016 15:07:45 +0000

On 12/12/16, 8:34 AM, "Mirja Kuehlewind" <[email-masked]> wrote:

Mirja:

Hi!

I think we would be getting too close to taking a stance on the validity, enforceability of the IPR.  The WG has already discussed and chose to go ahead.

RFC6090 is a normative reference for this document, pointing at the signature algorithm to be used.  Any implementer would have to at least check out RFC6090 and would find the text above in the Abstract.

Thanks!

Alvaro.

---

From: "Ben Campbell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2016 10:15:32 -0600

On 12 Dec 2016, at 9:07, Alvaro Retana (aretana) wrote:

> I think we would be getting too close to taking a stance on the 
> validity, enforceability of the IPR.  The WG has already discussed and 
> chose to go ahead.
>
> RFC6090 is a normative reference for this document, pointing at the 
> signature algorithm to be used.  Any implementer would have to at 
> least check out RFC6090 and would find the text above in the Abstract.

I agree with Alvaro, with the caveat that it would be more than "too 
close"; it would be the same as taking a stance on validity.

It's the implementors problem to consider IPR issues even without a 
disclosure.

Thanks!

Ben.

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2016 10:12:44 -0800

> It's the implementors problem to consider IPR issues even without a

and ours not to lead them into ipr with no warning.

randy

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2016 04:47:39 +0900

>     that preceded the filing of the patent, especially those mentioned
>     in RFC6090.  RFC6090 notes that its descriptions "may be useful
>     for implementing the fundamental algorithms without using any of
>     the specialized methods that were developed in following years.""

perhaps the simple truth would raise less objection; if it does raise
objection then i suspect something is broken.

say that there is an ipr filing on this draft and the wg considered that
and decided to go ahead anyway.  also say that \cite{rfc6090} describes
relevant algorithms and has no ipr filed against it.

randy

---

From: "Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2016 22:38:30 +0100

Yes, just wanted to make sure implementors have the information they need to make a decision.

The text cited from the shepherd write-up only says that RFC6090 predates the patent filing; without a judgement or validity check.

However, that was just a thought/question. If the answer is no that’s fine.

Mirja

> Am 12.12.2016 um 19:12 schrieb Randy Bush <[email-masked]>:
>