Re: [Idr] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-idr-flow-spec-05.txt

["John G. Scudder" <jgs at juniper.net>]

Yakov,

I've held back from replying until now because of my job affiliation,  
but since you ask:

Yes.

I'd like to think that I would have said the same regardless of  
affiliation though it's hard to prove a hypothetical.

FWIW I've read the current arguments related to IPR issues.  My  
*personal* feeling about this is that I think the current situation  
with IPR is pretty awful, but that problem and its remedies are both  
far beyond the scope of what the IETF is competent and able to  
accomplish.  Although the IETF is famous for trying to boil the ocean,  
it would be great to skip that step this time.

IMO the (corrected) licensing terms that were disclosed are nearly the  
least repulsive possible, and probably the least repulsive that it's  
reasonable to expect.

Making the best of a bad situation,

--John

On Mar 5, 2009, at 7:04 PM, Yakov Rekhter wrote:

> Dave,
>
> > Sue, Yakov -
> >
> > This deadline has come and gone with zero comments on the re-LC of
> > this draft. Given the comments and discussion on IPR disclosures on
> > the IDR list in general, I (and the IESG) need a more concrete sign
> > that the WG has consensus that the document should continue to
> > progress towards publication.
>
> Agreed.
>
> With this in mind I'd like to ask members of the WG to reply to
> this e-mail with either "yes" or "no" (where "yes" means progress
> draft-ietf-idr-flow-spec towards standardization, and "no" means
> do not progress draft-ietf-idr-flow-spec towards standardization).
>
> Please note that (a) silence does not count either way, and (b) a
> handful of "yes" or "no" does not make consensus either way.
>
> The deadline for response is March 19, 2009.
>
> Yakov.
>
> > ------------
>
> > Related to IPR, I strongly encourage all IETF participants to read  
> > and
> > understand:
> >
> >       http://www.ietf.org/overview.html (read and understand the NOTE
> > WELL)
> >
> >       http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3979.txt?number=3979
> >
> >       http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4879.txt
> >
> >
> > I refer the WG to these documents and pointers as well:
> >
> >       http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3669.txt?number=3669
> >
> >       https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/
> >
> >       http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/group/edu/attachment/wiki/IETF72/72newcomer
> s.ppt
> >   (page 48 - 56)
> >
> >       Newcomer's training at the upcoming IETF held by the edu team
> > on Sunday 2009.03.22 at 1300 in Imperial B (see https://datatracker.ietf.org/
> meeting/74/agenda.txt
> >  for any changes)
> >
> >
> >
> > If you have difficulty keeping up with IPR disclosures, here is an  
> > RSS
> > feed of all IETF IPR disclosures:
> >
> > feed:https://datatracker.ietf.org/feed/ipr/
> >
> > If you believe that you'd like the ADs to spend some time in the
> > RTGAREA WG meeting to provide some education on IPR issues, rule,
> > requirements, etc at the IETF please contact us privately or mailto:rtg-ads at t
> ools.ietf.org
> > Thanks and hope it helps.
> >
> > -DWard
> >
> > On Feb 17, 2009, at 6:30 PM, Yakov Rekhter wrote:
> >
> > > Folks,
> > >
> > > Given the recent IPR disclosure (https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/
> > > 1088)
> > > associated with the flow-spec draft
> > > (http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-idr-flow- 
> > > spec-05.txt )
> > > we are going to re-WG-LC the document and rerun the publication
> > > process.
> > >
> > > The deadline for comments is 3/2/2009.
> > >
> > > Sue & Yakov.
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Idr mailing list
> > > Idr at ietf.org
> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> Idr at ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr