adrian, > -----Original Message----- > From: Adrian Farrel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2007 2:08 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [Pce] Acceptance of draft-vasseur-pce-monitoring-03.txt ? > > 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 > > we have seen on the list ? the need for monitoring of the > > performance or the solution ? > > > > => both aspects are strongly inter-related. > > 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.
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) > Thanks, > Adrian > _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
