Subject: [sidr] draft-pmohapat-sidr-pfx-validate-03.txt as SIDR WG document

From: "Pradosh Mohapatra (pmohapat)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 17:45:05 -0700

The authors would like to request that
draft-pmohapat-sidr-pfx-validate-03.txt be adopted as a SIDR WG
document.

Thanks,
- Pradosh

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 10:26:08 +0900

> draft-pmohapat-sidr-pfx-validate-03.txt be adopted as a SIDR WG

i support this

randy

---

From: Sandra Murphy <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 21:47:00 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)

I am opening a two week wg call for comments on the adoption of this 
document as a working group item.

This is a new version of the draft that was presented at the last IETF 
meeting (http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/75/slides/sidr-8.pdf).  Potential 
adoption of the pfx-validate draft as a working group document was 
mentioned at that time.

The document is available at:

http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-pmohapat-sidr-pfx-validate-03.txt

Please respond, either accept or not accept, by Tues Nov 3 2009.

As usual, the rules are that silence does not indicate assent, so please 
actively reply.

If you support adoption of this draft as a working group item, please also 
indicate whether you will be able to work on the draft (contribute 
or review).

--Sandy

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009, Pradosh Mohapatra (pmohapat) wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> sidr mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
>

---

From: "Junaid Israr (jisrar)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 22:02:22 -0400

I support this.

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Pradosh Mohapatra (pmohapat)
Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 8:45 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [sidr] draft-pmohapat-sidr-pfx-validate-03.txt as SIDR WG
document

Thanks,
- Pradosh

---

From: George Michaelson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 13:27:20 +1000

For the record, I object. the filed IPR claim at the IETF site is  
vague and does not provide sufficient details to isolate the claim at  
the US patent office.

I visited the US patent office and searched in the "PAIR" system and  
it replied:

	Sorry, the entered Application Number "12/243767" is not available.
	The number may have been incorrectly typed, or assigned to an  
application
	that is not yet available for public inspection.

-George

On 28/10/2009, at 11:47 AM, Sandra Murphy wrote:

> This is a new version of the draft that was presented at the last  
> IETF meeting (http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/75/slides/sidr-8.pdf).   
> Potential adoption of the pfx-validate draft as a working group  
> document was mentioned at that time.
>
> As usual, the rules are that silence does not indicate assent, so  
> please actively reply.
>
> If you support adoption of this draft as a working group item,  
> please also indicate whether you will be able to work on the draft  
> (contribute or review).
>
> --Sandy
>
>

---

From: Terry Manderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 22:49:00 -0700

I feel unable to say either way at present.

The IPR disclosure at https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1028/
highlights the US Patent Application Serial No. 12/243,767.

In searching for this, at the USPTO I cannot find any relevant documents
with that serial.

I did try searching for "Cisco" as the named party - but it returned far
more applications than I am willing to read through...

A direct link to the Patent Application would be appreciated!

Cheers
Terry

---

From: Robert Loomans <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 16:05:17 +1000

> I feel unable to say either way at present.
...
> A direct link to the Patent Application would be appreciated!

Ditto. I'm reluctant to take any stance on this draft without more
information on what the patent claims.

Additionally, I'd like to see a clear statement as to what this draft
says for which the existing draft-ietf-sidr-roa-validation is insufficient.

Rob

-- 
Robert Loomans                         email:       [email-masked]
Senior Software Engineer, APNIC        sip:    [email-masked]
http://www.apnic.net/                  phone:         +61 7 3858 3100

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 11:36:09 -0400

General comment:
The US Patent office procedures are such that there is a delay between 
filing and public disclosure of applications.  That may be applicable here.

the IETF procedures specifically ask folks to tell us about such patent 
applications, if they think they apply.  However, we understand that we 
can not get details at that point.

If we treat such disclosure as a priori blocked of WG consideration of a 
document, we invite denial of service attacks on our work.  If this 
document were being last called, then the question would be 
significantly more complicated.  But we are only at WG adoption, as a 
starting point for work on a topic.

(This is separate from the additional, relevant, question that Robert asks.)

Yours,
Joel M. Halpern

---

From: Samuel Weiler <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 11:47:27 -0400 (EDT)

> says for which the existing draft-ietf-sidr-roa-validation is insufficient.

I'll second this portion of Rob's note: I'd like some help 
understanding the differences in technical substance between these two 
documents.

-- Sam

---

From: Samuel Weiler <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 11:52:20 -0400 (EDT)

On Fri, 30 Oct 2009, Joel M. Halpern wrote:

> If this document were being last called, then the question would be 
> significantly more complicated.  But we are only at WG adoption, as 
> a starting point for work on a topic.

HOWEVER: we have a technically similar draft that has been proposed 
for WGLC, and we have not heard a definitive statement about whether 
the IPR claims on draft-pmohapat-sidr-pfx-validate-03 would also apply 
to draft-ietf-sidr-roa-validation-03.txt.  (I asked on this list last 
week.)  Which doesn't complicate the adoption of this draft, but it 
might well complicate the WGLC on the current WG document.

-- Sam