Subject: [v6ops] Consensus call, Protocol Action: '464XLAT: Combination of Stateful andStateless Translation' to Best CurrentPractice (draft-ietf-v6ops-464xlat-09.txt)

From: joel jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2013 11:40:13 -0800

To emphasize Fred's request, please share you opinion on whether this 
document should be published intact (as a BCP), with with a lower state 
(informational), or not at all, given the IPR disclosure associated with it.

The document can be reviewed here:

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-464xlat-09

the known IPR disclosure is here:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?option=document_search&document_search=draft-ietf-v6ops-464xlat

if you have registered your opinion on this subject already you will be 
counted.

The deadline for commentary is Monday Feb 11th 2012.

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2013 12:09:41 -0800

At 11:40 04-02-2013, joel jaeggli wrote:
>To emphasize Fred's request, please share you opinion on whether 
>this document should be published intact (as a BCP), with with a 
>lower state (informational), or not at all, given the IPR disclosure 
>associated with it.
>
>if you have registered your opinion on this subject already you will 
>be counted.
>

"China Mobile has spent lots of efforts like expenditure of man 
workforce, time, et al. on some technologies" [1].  It is unknown how 
anyone following this intended IETF best current practice for 
building a service based on 464XLAT architecture will be affected by 
that.  I mentioned previously that the the IPR disclosure at 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1730/ is not IETF-friendly.  I don't 
think that the draft should be published as a BCP.

I would like to thank the V6OPS WG Chair for his attempt to clarify 
the situation [2].  I note that here has not been any reply from Mr 
Wang who is affiliated with China Mobile.

Regards,
-sm

1. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops/current/msg15016.html
2. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops/current/msg15093.html

---

From: "ietfdbh" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2013 15:48:04 -0500

Hi,

Since the licensing terms are
"Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory License to All Implementers with Possible
Royalty/Fee",
I think Informational sounds correct.

David Harrington
[email-masked]
+1-603-828-1401
-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
Of joel jaeggli
Sent: Monday, February 04, 2013 2:40 PM
To: IPv6 Ops WG; Working Group Chairs
Subject: Consensus call, Protocol Action: '464XLAT: Combination of Stateful
andStateless Translation' to Best CurrentPractice
(draft-ietf-v6ops-464xlat-09.txt)

https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?option=document_search&document_sea
rch=draft-ietf-v6ops-464xlat

---

From: "Howard, Lee" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2013 16:49:53 -0500

BCP is premature.

Lee

>The deadline for commentary is Monday Feb 11th 2012.

This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.

---

From: t.petch <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2013 10:20:54 +0000

publish as BCP.

Tom Petch

----- Original Message -----
From: "joel jaeggli" <[email-masked]>
To: "IPv6 Ops WG" <[email-masked]>; "Working Group Chairs"
<[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, February 04, 2013 7:40 PM

> the known IPR disclosure is here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?option=document_search&document
_search=draft-ietf-v6ops-464xlat
> if you have registered your opinion on this subject already you will
be
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>

---

From: Maoke <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2013 19:26:38 +0900

2013/2/5 t.petch <[email-masked]>

> publish as BCP.

+1

- Maoke Chen

---

From: Nick Hilliard <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2013 10:43:41 +0000

> (informational), or not at all, given the IPR disclosure associated with it.

As there IPR associated with this, my opinion is that it should not be
published as a BCP.

I'm specifically concerned about the cultural and legal differences in
interpretation of RFC classifications in Roman Law derived areas (US /
Europe / many other countries) vs China, where differences in technical
standard classifications can have legal significance.

Nick

---

From: Vízdal Aleš <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2013 12:29:11 +0100

I support this draft to be published as a BCP.

Ales

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of joel
> jaeggli
> Sent: Monday, February 04, 2013 8:40 PM
> Subject: [v6ops] Consensus call, Protocol Action: '464XLAT: Combination of Stateful
> andStateless Translation' to Best CurrentPractice (draft-ietf-v6ops-464xlat-09.txt)
>

---

From: "Howard, Lee" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2013 11:59:37 -0500

Are you suggesting that 464xlat is a BCP, or that, if one is going to
deploy 464xlat, this is the best practice on how to do so?
Is there enough operational experience (among a diversity of operators) to
know that this is a Best Current Practice?  Or is this more of an
operational report back to the IETF?

Lee

---

From: t.petch <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2013 17:27:33 +0000

----- Original Message -----
From: "Howard, Lee" <[email-masked]>
To: "t.petch" <[email-masked]>; "joel jaeggli" <[email-masked]>;
"IPv6 Ops WG" <[email-masked]>; "Working Group Chairs"
<[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2013 4:59 PM

Is there enough operational experience (among a diversity of operators)
to

Lee

I am saying that the discussions on this list have ended  up with an I-D
with the proposed status of BCP.  I may not agree with everything that
has been said - and much has been said - but I believe that the I-D as
it currently stands should be published as is.

Tom Petch

Lee

>> The deadline for commentary is Monday Feb 11th 2012.

This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable
proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject
to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended
solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed.
If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby
notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken
in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is
strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this
E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently
delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.

---

From: "George, Wes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2013 09:05:09 -0500

I would rather see this as an informational document. Like others, I'm not convinced it actually is best common practice, and I'm even more leery of declaring it so when it is encumbered with an IPR morass.
China Mobile's answers have done nothing to instill confidence that it will be anything less than such for those interested in implementing it. I also do not believe that the document is made any less useful by being released as informational instead of BCP.

Wes George

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
> Of joel jaeggli
> Subject: [v6ops] Consensus call, Protocol Action: '464XLAT: Combination
> of Stateful andStateless Translation' to Best CurrentPractice (draft-
> ietf-v6ops-464xlat-09.txt)
>

---

From: Shishio Tsuchiya <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2013 14:18:59 +0900

I supports publish this draft as "informational".
XLAT464 is good solution.
It could minimize configuration parameters and utilize current implementation.
I can understand it is very useful for both IPv6 PDP only 3G environment(Wireless) and non-managed CPE network(Wireline).

But I don't think this is current BEST.
Especially there are many implementation of MAP-E/MAP-E/DS-lite in wireline network.

This should publish RFC as "informational".

Regards,
-Shishio

(2013/02/05 4:40), joel jaeggli wrote:
> To emphasize Fred's request, please share you opinion on whether this document should be published intact (as a BCP), with with a lower state (informational), or not at all, given the IPR disclosure associated with it.
> 
> if you have registered your opinion on this subject already you will be counted.
>

---

From: Arturo Servin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2013 10:52:56 -0200

Informational.

	Before the IPRs claims I could have lived with it as BCP (although I
did not fully agree), but now I think that the best approach the IETF
should follow is to publish the document as informational.

Regards,
as

---

From: joel jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 19:12:05 -0800

This call is closed,

Fred and I will theoretically be able to close the loop on the input by 
sometime tomorrow.

Thank you all for weighing in on this important topic.

joel

On 2/4/13 11:40 AM, joel jaeggli wrote:
> document should be published intact (as a BCP), with with a lower 
> state (informational), or not at all, given the IPR disclosure 
> associated with it.
>

---

From: joel jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 23:11:34 -0800

On 2/11/13 7:12 PM, joel jaeggli wrote:
> This call is closed,
>
> Fred and I will theoretically be able to close the loop on the input 
> by sometime tomorrow.
>

In terms of results.

By my tally

1108 messages or our lists since 1/9/2012

 From the point of Ron's question to the list 1/10.

     Folks,
     Draft-ietf-v6ops-464xlat is nearly ready for IESG approval. However,
     several IESG members, including me, are concerned that the WG
     has not yet considered the IPR declaration attached to this document.

     So, I will wait one more week before approving this document. If you
     are concerned about the IPR declaration, please post a message 
describing
     your concerns to the list. If no such concerns are posted, I will 
approve
     the draft on January 17.

to the point of close of deadline

we've reviewed roughly 158 Germain messages from 39 participants

Not all messages addressed the question and I excluded participants that 
didn't address the issue. 2 participants expressed a preference for both 
publication as a bcp and publication at a lower status, I counted them 
in the later category. I consider this equivalent to a show of hands in 
the meeting

publish
9

lower status
14

don't publish
4

no preference

1

regarding the last category, one participant directly addressed the 
issue but declined explicitly to state a preference.

This represents a similar set of participants as the on list WGLC. but 
fewer than in the meeting. Generally I interpret the input as indicating 
that the IPR cliam/terms are not an insurmountable barrier to 
publication. also that notwithstanding the narrow applicability 
statement that a plurality if not consensus input would be to reduce the 
requested status to informational.