Subject: Re: Oppose draft-carpenter-ipr-patent-frswds-00

From: "Frank Ellermann" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2007 02:51:42 +0100

David Black wrote:

>>| Some PS RFCs are either very little used or very 
>>| complicated, meaning they aren't very popular (to
>>| the Open Source community) or cost to much
>>| (time/money) to develop.
 
>> Then they don't qualify as DS.  Why should (unpaid) 
>> volunteers bother to check the interoperability of 
>> commercial products and stamp them as DS ?

> I have to object to the implicit assumption that the
> community of "(unpaid) volunteers" working on free (or
> open source or whatever term you prefer) software is
> entitled to a veto over what protocols are useful enough
> to be promoted to draft standard.

The "community" I had in mind was the "IETF community",
and the IETF is certainly entitled to "veto" a promotion
to DS for various reasons.  There's a Last Call.  There
has to be a proper "implementation and interoperabilty
report".  Errata need to be fixed.  

 Frank

_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2007 11:55:30 -0500

Frank,

> has to be a proper "implementation and interoperability

I can definitely agree with that, and I also support doing
things that encourage free software implementations of IETF
protocols (been there, have the scars from working through
that sort of issue in practice), as long as "encourage"
doesn't become "require".  In this regard, I think Simon's
draft could be quite useful when taken to completion - I'm
not signing up for every word or phrase Simon used, but I
think the approach of discussing how to be friendly to free
software in practice is a good one.  Once worked out, this
could be a good topic for a WG Chairs training session.

Thanks,
--David
----------------------------------------------------
David L. Black, Distinguished Engineer
EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA  01748
+1 (508) 293-7953             FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786
[email-masked]        Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754
----------------------------------------------------

---

From: "TS Glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2007 09:59:01 -0800

David - any process which conveys any and all rights including derivatives 
to the IETF's Foundation is a "require" and not a optional gifting. That 
means that the entire purpose and charter for the Foundation probably need 
to be revisted.

Todd Glassey

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, November 05, 2007 8:55 AM
Subject: RE: Oppose draft-carpenter-ipr-patent-frswds-00

Frank,

Thanks,
--David

---

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 03:17:50 -0500

At 08:31 PM 10/30/2007, Henning Schulzrinne wrote:

>Huh? There are at least two open-source implementations for RSVP (ISI
>and KOM) that I know of, and that's probably a small subset.

I am referring to two completely compliant implementations of RFC 
2205, as is, not with a WG [email-masked] Tue Nov 06 10:05:58 2007
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 03:17:50 -0500
To: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Cc: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>, IPR WG <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Oppose draft-carpenter-ipr-patent-frswds-00

At 08:31 PM 10/30/2007, Henning Schulzrinne wrote:

>Huh? There are at least two open-source implementations for RSVP (ISI
>and KOM) that I know of, and that's probably a small subset.

I am referring to two completely compliant implementations of RFC 
2205, as is, not with a WG removing any pmoving any parameters from that original spec.

With the ability to shape what parameters and features progress 
forward in the DS advancement, things become much more possible.

BTW - I picked RSVP as a bit of a red herring since the originator 
(i.e., editor/author) of RSVP believes NSIS should be considered the 
logical follow-on to RSVPv1, instead of progressing RSVP past PS (up to DS).

I haven't pushed the issue with Bob though, but he did say this to me 
at the Paris meeting.

>For DS, the chairs and the WG determine lots of criteria for
>advancement, in particular, how diligent the interoperability tests
>need to be, what documentation needs to be provided, what features
>need to be ditched (it seems very rare that every single parameter or
>corner case in a protocol has two implementations or is truly
>tested), etc. Allowing a WG to raise the bar for an important
>protocol likely to see open-source implementations seems like a
>reasonable degree of freedom.
>
>>Let's use something like RSVP as an example protocol, requiring an
>>open source implementation before any commercial implementations
>>are compliant with RFC 2205.  I say "fat chance that will happen",
>>leaving RSVP - which has been implemented and operational for
>>almost 10 years now on virtually _every_ Cisco router - to live at
>>PS forever...
>>
>>
>>>     Brian

---

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 14:24:00 -0500

---

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 14:24:00 -0500

At 09:56 PM 10/29/2007, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>I will continue to divert discussion to the ipr list each time
>I remember...
>
>On 2007-10-30 08:44, Henning Schulzrinne wrote:
>>I admit to finding the discussion about Draft standards a bit 
>>theoretical, given how few RFCs ever make it there. As a rough estimate,
>>http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfcxx00.html#Draft
>>shows a rate of 20 out of a 1000.
>
>Indeed. But the only place in our process where we actually
>evaluate implementations is there (and at the DS->STD stage).
>Where else can we apply an empirical test?

Why does an empirical test require an open source (of the two required)?

Why can't Cisco and IBM get together and work out (and prove) 
completely compliant implementations of an RFC?

I guess I'm reading your text as a MUST, when I'm not so opposed to a 
SHOULD strength, with the reason not to do it as a given protocol is 
too complicated or very limited in popularity for anyone to 
reasonably do everything (open source) within in the next n (5?) 
years.  The IESG can judge that one, based on two commercial 
implementations being presented to them with the intention of 
progressing a PS to a DS.

BTW - I'm a believer that all WGs have a charter item to move their 
core protocol to DS. Yet if a mandate were to be "one has to be open 
source", this DS charter item idea is pointless, because WG chairs 
shouldn't be in a position to dictate there become a completely 
compliant open source implementation. This becomes a popularity 
contest of making protocols simpler (re: less features), to the point 
of that protocol possibly not addressing the requirements for a solution.

Let's use something like RSVP as an example protocol, requiring an 
open source implementation before any commercial implementations are 
compliant with RFC 2205.  I say "fat chance that will happen", 
leaving RSVP - which has been implemented and operational for almost 
10 years now on virtually _every_ Cisco router - to live at PS forever...

=20Re=3A=20Oppose=20draft-carpenter-ipr-patent-frswds-00
	|Sender:=20
	|To:=20Brian=20E=20Carpenter=20<[email-masked]>,
	=0A=20=20=20
	=20=20=20=20=20Henning=20Schulzrinne=20<[email-masked]>;
	bh=nYREqZYgCWP8TtEQEimA57rVwoKe/bq+8i01ehJoBE0=;
	b=QZxgjLyLa/lC8NoN/Gk0YqXHf7eDjfQAMLt8rZyQ7huP8zYDKajxW1EZDcv/9Z+47ZLNpQDz
	k/SHPp7AGmMM2HbRTihBU/v3SLYmcTd5p47OB5/oHgCgIOgJmPSReSOE;
Cc: IPR WG <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Oppose draft-carpenter-ipr-patent-frswds-00

At 09:56 PM 10/29/2007, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>I will continue to divert discussion to the ipr list each time
>I remember...
>
>On 2007-10-30 08:44, Henning Schulzrinne wrote:
>>I admit to finding the discussion about Draft standards a bit 
>>theoretical, given how few RFCs ever make it there. As a rough estimate,
>>http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfcxx00.html#Draft
>>shows a rate of 20 out of a 1000.
>
>Indeed. But the only place in our process where we actually
>evaluate implementations is there (and at the DS->STD stage).
>Where else can we apply an empirical test?

Why does an empirical test require an open source (of the two required)?

Why can't Cisco and IBM get together and work out (and prove) 
completely compliant implementations of an RFC?

I guess I'm reading your text as a MUST, when I'm not so opposed to a 
SHOULD strength, with the reason not to do it as a given protocol is 
too complicated or very limited in popularity for anyone to 
reasonably do everything (open source) within in the next n (5?) 
years.  The IESG can judge that one, based on two commercial 
implementations being presented to them with the intention of 
progressing a PS to a DS.

BTW - I'm a believer that all WGs have a charter item to move their 
core protocol to DS. Yet if a mandate were to be "one has to be open 
source", this DS charter item idea is pointless, because WG chairs 
shouldn't be in a position to dictate there become a completely 
compliant open source implementation. This becomes a popularity 
contest of making protocols simpler (re: less features), to the point 
of that protocol possibly not addressing the requirements for a solution.

Let's use something like RSVP as an example protocol, requiring an 
open source implementation before any commercial implementations are 
compliant with RFC 2205.  I say "fat chance that will happen", 
leaving RSVP - which has been implemented and operational for almost 
10 years now on virtually _every_ Cisco router - to live at PS forever...