Robert:
Many thanks for your detailed review. I will send some technical comments on
this
topic but wanted to answer you and Andrew on the IPR issue separately:
Robert wrote:
That happens sometimes, but it's much better to have a real indication
that the group considered the disclosure and explicitly decided not to
change directions.
Andrew wrote:
The IPR declaration is against the original individual draft,
draft-dong-pwe3-redundancy-spe. The IPR declaration was from a company that
was not represented as an author on the draft, and offered free licencing
with reciprocity.
OK. Interesting background information.
At the time, no concerns were raised by either the authors or from anyone in
the WG in response to the declaration. This, IMHO, is normal operating
procedure when IPR declarations are made, especially by non-author entities
and early in the process. The usual concern is when declarations come in late
in the process, especially from an author company. Neither was the case here,
it was still an individual draft. And of course, the declaration was clear
for all to see during both WG adoption and WG LC polls.
I think this is the key. The standing practice at the IETF is that IPR gets
declared, timely, and the information is used by the participants when they
decide things like whether they support document adoption (among many other
factors). I find that there is often no explicit discussion but those that care
take the information into account, in careful and competent manner and through
consultation with their colleagues back home etc.
So, it appears that the right thing happened here, and your answer above is the
right one for Robert’s question.
However, I have one question, as I started digging… First, this is one of those
many cases where an individual draft has an IPR declaration and the later
adoption into a WG draft doesn’t lead to a new declaration. Our tools usually
track this correctly, as long as the replaced-by information is correctly
updated. (WG chairs: please check that this happens when you adopt documents.)
But in this case I noticed that
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pals-redundancy-spe/ shows 1 IPR
whereas https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pals-redundancy-spe-02 does not.
But https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dong-pwe3-redundancy-spe-04 does. What
gives? Robert, do you know if the tools version does not track through
replaced-by? Getting such information properly displayed in all cases might be
important, as many people use the tools server to view drafts.
In any case, my question is, I think, not relevant to the question of whether
the group properly considered *this* case, because at the time that the
document was adopted, it was an individual draft and therefore likely correctly
displayed in all tools. The date of IPR declaration was Nov 2012, and the first
WG document on this (in PWE3) appeared in December 2012.
Jari
Thanks,
Andy
On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 11:30 PM, Robert Sparks
<rjsparks(_at_)nostrum(_dot_)com> wrote:
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.
For more information, please see the FAQ at
<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
Document: draft-ietf-pals-redundancy-spe-02
Reviewer: Robert Sparks
Review Date: 16 Oct 2015
IETF LC End Date: 19 Oct 2015
IESG Telechat date: 22 Oct 2015
Summary: Almost ready for publication as PS but with issues that need to be
discussed/addressed
This document is hard to read. It is more acronym-laden than it
needs to be.
-----
There is a process issue that the IESG should pay attention to.
The shepherd writeup says this:
"There is one IPR declaration (1911) raised in November 2012 against
an early version of the draft. There was no discussion in the WG
related to this."
-----
The last sentence of the 2nd paragraph (declaring multi-homing on both
sides of an S-PE out of scope) should be moved earlier in the document.
The introduction and perhaps even the abstract can be clearer about
what _is_ in scope.
It needs to be clearer where the normative description of behavior is.
I think you're intending it to be the first part of section 3. I have
not worked through the references enough to ensure that it is complete.
The third paragraph starts off "In general, ...". Are there any
specific cases where the requirements that follow do not hold? If so,
there needs to be more description. If not, please delete "In general,".
Are sections 3.1 and 3.2 supposed to be only examples? Would the
specification of the protocol be complete if they were deleted? If not,
something needs to be moved up into the main part of section 3.
For instance, is the SHOULD at the end of 3.1 a requirement placed by
this document, or is it restating a requirement from somewhere else?
Similarly, please inspect the SHOULD in the second paragraph of 3.2.
I also suggest moving 3.1 and 3.2 into their own section, clearly
labeling them as examples.
Is it worth more explanation in the document why you've added the
MUST NOT in the first paragraph of section 3?
The security considerations section only points off to other documents.
Most of those just point to each other. Chasing it back, there's some
meat in the security considerations section of 4447, and some in 5085,
but it's a real chase to find what's relevant. Please consider calling
out what an implementer needs to consider explicitly here.
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail