Subject: Extended comment period for Composite Link Requirements as WG document

From: "John G. Scudder" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 13:23:15 +0200

Folks,

The call for WG adoption of draft-so-yong-mpls-ctg-requirement-00 completed some time ago.  As a reminder, the original message is appended below.  However some of you may have noticed that there have been a couple of related IPR filings.  For this reason we would like to briefly extend the period for comment.

The IPR filings are:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1260/ "HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES CO.,LTD 's Statement about IPR related to draft-so-yong-mpls-ctg-requirement-00" 

https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1256/ "Verizon Patent and Licensing Inc.'s Statement about IPR related to draft-so-yong-mpls-ctg-requirement-00"

If you have any further comments on WG adoption of draft-so-yong-mpls-ctg-requirement-00, please send them by February 17.

Thanks,

--John

> From: "John G. Scudder" <[email-masked]>
> Date: November 10, 2009 11:07:36 AM GMT+02:00
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked], ZININ Alex <[email-masked]>
> Subject: Composite Link Requirements as WG document
> 
> Folks,
> 
> At today's meeting we received a request to adopt draft-so-yong-mpls-ctg-requirement-00 as a working group document.  There was reasonably strong support in the room for doing so.  Please respond to the mailing list with your discussion, support or opposition (please do this even if you did so in person).  The deadline for comments is November 30.
> 
> Note that accepting the document simply means that the working group would begin working on requirements.  It does not imply blanket acceptance of the document as it now stands.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> --John

---

From: Lou Berger <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2010 08:59:10 -0500

John,
	While there is nothing wrong with standardizing a patented technology
per se, given that this work is just at the requirements stage perhaps
it makes more sense to focus on the requirements of supporting
'composite links' as defined in G.800
(http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-G.800-200709-I/en).  In fact, after giving
a quick look at the documents, I don't see 'CTG' used or defined
anywhere in either G.800 or the draft.  So perhaps the only needed
changes are (a) to remove any references to "CTG", including in the name
and (b) add some text placing the draft/requirements in the context
G.800 defined composite links.

Note that my comment has no bearing on the eventual solution selected by
the WG to support the requirements, which may even be the solution(s)
covered in the patent applications.

Lou

On 2/9/2010 6:23 AM, John G. Scudder wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> rtgwg mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
> 
> 
>

---

From: "So, Ning" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2010 15:39:12 +0000

Lou,

Thank you for your comments.  Since we do not have any wording of "CTG"
in the requirement draft (as indicated in your e-mail as well), I assume
there is nothing needs to be done to your suggestion "a".  We are fine
with your suggestion "b" of referencing G.800 in the draft.  It is a
very minor change, which can be done after it becomes WG draft.  

Regards,

Ning So
Lead Engineer
Enterprise Data Network and Traffic Planning
972-729-7905

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
Of Lou Berger
Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2010 7:59 AM
To: John G. Scudder
Cc: [email-masked]; ZININ Alex; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Extended comment period for Composite Link Requirements as
WGdocument

John,
	While there is nothing wrong with standardizing a patented
technology

Lou

On 2/9/2010 6:23 AM, John G. Scudder wrote:
> Folks,
> 
> The call for WG adoption of draft-so-yong-mpls-ctg-requirement-00
completed some time ago.  As a reminder, the original message is
appended below.  However some of you may have noticed that there have
been a couple of related IPR filings.  For this reason we would like to
briefly extend the period for comment.
> 
> The IPR filings are:
> 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1260/ "HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES CO.,LTD 's
Statement about IPR related to draft-so-yong-mpls-ctg-requirement-00" 
> 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1256/ "Verizon Patent and Licensing
Inc.'s Statement about IPR related to
draft-so-yong-mpls-ctg-requirement-00"
> 
> If you have any further comments on WG adoption of
draft-so-yong-mpls-ctg-requirement-00, please send them by February 17.
>> At today's meeting we received a request to adopt
draft-so-yong-mpls-ctg-requirement-00 as a working group document.
There was reasonably strong support in the room for doing so.  Please
respond to the mailing list with your discussion, support or opposition
(please do this even if you did so in person).  The deadline for
comments is November 30.
>>
>> Note that accepting the document simply means that the working group
would begin working on requirements.  It does not imply blanket
acceptance of the document as it now stands.

---

From: Lou Berger <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2010 16:45:22 -0500

Ning,

CTG is in the draft name and should be removed before/as the document
becomes a WG document.  As you say, this doesn't require a new version,
i.e., John could just ask for the document to be republished as say
something like 'draft-ietf-rtwg-cl-requirements'.

I do think the addition of the G.800 perspective should be added prior
to the document becoming a WG document as it provides formal context for
the WG activity.

Lou

---

From: "John G. Scudder" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 14:03:25 +0200

Folks,

The extended comment period for draft-so-yong-mpls-ctg-requirement-00 has ended.  The document is accepted as a RTGWG working group document, with the understanding that the authors will revise the document to frame it in the context of G.800 defined composite links per discussion during the comment period.  

Authors, please submit as draft-ietf-rtgwg-cl-requirements-00.

Thanks,

--John, Alia and Alex