Subject: [Pce] Acceptance of draft-vasseur-pce-monitoring-03.txt ?

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2007 11:22:58 +0100

Hi,

Some time back we had a relatively good show of support for 
draft-vasseur-pce-monitoring as a working group I-D.

There are still some questions being raised, but in my opinion, that is 
fine. We expect questions, discussions, and modifications of the draft in 
its lifetime within the working group.

However, since we all expressed our opinions on the draft, JP has drawn our 
attention to the IPR claim registered at 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/872/. So, before we go ahead and adopt the 
work, I just need to check that there is no new strong opinion against it.

I'll give you a few days to respond.

Thanks,
Adrian 

_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce

---

From: "PAPADIMITRIOU Dimitri" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2007 13:07:11 +0200

adrian - see inline:

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adrian Farrel [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2007 12:23 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [Pce] Acceptance of draft-vasseur-pce-monitoring-03.txt ?
> 
> Hi,
> 

-> the question is what is the object of the support that 
we have seen on the list ? the need for monitoring of the
performance or the solution ?

=> both aspects are strongly inter-related.

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 13:07:30 +0100

Hi,

I asked:

>> ... since we all expressed our opinions on the draft, JP
>> has drawn our attention to the IPR claim registered at
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/872/. So, before we go ahead
>> and adopt the work, I just need to check that there is no
>> new strong opinion against it.

And no-one has expressed such an opinion, so we can go ahead.

Authors, please resubmit as draft-ietf-pce-monitoring-00.txt making only the 
usual minimal changes.
Please attach a copy of the email supplied here so that the Secretariat 
accept your submission.

Dimitri asked:

> the question is what is the object of the support that

I can't really judge that since the question I originally asked was whether 
there was support for adopting the I-D. It seems to me that the support for 
the I-D indicates definite support for the need for monitoring. It seems 
likely that the support for the I-D suggests using this as the basis for the 
WG solution, but the WG is (of course) free to work on this solution and 
modify it as driven by consensus.

Thanks,
Adrian 

Subject: New PCE I-D
From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Cc: "'Jean Philippe Vasseur'" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2007 16:07:27 +0100

Hi,

Please make space for draft-ietf-pce-monitoring-00.txt that will replace 
draft-vasseur-pce-monitoring-03.txt

The authors will submit it soon.

Thanks,
Adrian

---

From: "PAPADIMITRIOU Dimitri" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 21:45:18 +0200

adrian,

> Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2007 2:08 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [Pce] Acceptance of draft-vasseur-pce-monitoring-03.txt ?
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I asked:
> 

hence the question should be rephrased as is there any other PCE
monitoring technique going to remove that claim ? it is a known practice
of ietf to look at alternative techniques in case a given claims is
blocking open access to a protocol - and such call should be launched on
the list -

the Cisco claim does not provide any specific information on the
technique(s) part of the claim => imho the initial question should be
asked when more information is made available about the claim itself -
if you look at the details of it is not possible to determine whether
such decision is possible at this point in time -

there is a side issue here - the chair belongs to the same affiliation
than the patent applicant - how comes this came so late in the process ?
the fact the document becomes a working-group i-d or not does not change
the base problem.

-d (let's not transform the IETF as the IVTF - Internet Vendor Task
Force)