Hi Mahesh, Thanks for that clarification.
I would request Reshad to add the link to this thread and update the context for the IPR issue that was raised so as it give a better picture to the IESG when doing its evaluation. There is no rush since I still need to do the AD review. Thanks, Ketan On Fri, May 9, 2025 at 12:30 AM Mahesh Jethanandani <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Ketan, > > The patent that was granted was for the idea in the optimizing > authentication draft. The initial draft proposed having strong > authentication for state transitions that affected a BFD session but > switching to “NULL” auth once the BFD session was marked Up, with > occasional strong authentication in the Up state to mitigate any > man-in-the-middle attack. The latest version kept the strong authentication > concept for state transitions but did away with “NULL” auth option. > Instead, it relies on ISAAC+ to provide a less computationally intensive > way to validate the sequence numbers being carried in the packet in Up > state. > > I am not a lawyer, but the new method described in the draft seems > sufficiently different from what the patent claimed. > > I know Reshad was going on vacation, so I will not be surprised if you do > not hear from him for the next 12 days. > > Cheers. > > On May 8, 2025, at 1:39 AM, Ketan Talaulikar <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Hi Mahesh, > > Thanks for your email and I would like to request further clarification > from you on this as you are listed as one of the inventors in the IPR that > was disclosed. > > Is your position today that IPR declared does not apply to the latest > version of the draft (as it stands today)? > > This may clarify the situation during further progression of this document > as the shepherd report does disclose a "controversy" [1] related to the IPR > terms on this document. > > I would request the shepherding co-chair (Reshad) to update the shepherd > report based on your response, in case of a change in position. > > Thanks, > Ketan > > [1] > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/u8rvWwvDWRKI3jseGHecAB9WtDo/ > > On Thu, May 8, 2025 at 9:53 AM Mahesh Jethanandani < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi Reshad, >> >> Just one correction. There is an IPR that was declared and filed for the >> optimizing-authentication draft back in 2018. The draft now, though, >> significantly diverges from the patent that was filed. >> >> Thanks. >> >> On May 6, 2025, at 12:13 PM, Rahman <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> The WGLC has concluded and the shepherd write ups have been updated. The >> documents have been pushed to the next phase. >> >> It’s not over yet but thanks to everyone who has helped to get the >> documents past this milestone. It’s been a loooong journey and there’s more >> work to be done to get to the finish line. >> >> Regards, >> Reshad. >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On Mar 4, 2025, at 5:27 AM, Reshad Rahman < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> I am not aware of any IPR on these 3 documents. >> >> Regards, >> Reshad, >> >> On Tuesday, March 4, 2025 at 10:51:59 AM GMT+4, Reshad Rahman < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> My IPR check request incorrectly addressed only authors. It should >> instead have said (no need to re-respond if you already have): >> >> Authors, contributors, >> >> Are you personally aware of any IPR that applies to any of these 3 >> documents? If so, has this IPR been disclosed in >> compliance with IETF IPR rules? (See RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669, and 5378 for >> more details.) >> >> Please reply to this email regardless of whether or not you are personally >> aware of any relevant IPR. >> >> >> Regards, >> Reshad. >> >> On Tuesday, June 4, 2024 at 05:30:18 AM GMT+4, Reshad Rahman < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> BFD WG, >> >> This email starts a 2 week Working Group Last Call for the following 3 >> documents, please review and provide comments by end of day on June 17th. >> Feedback such as "I believe the document is ready to advance" is also >> welcome. >> >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bfd-secure-sequence-numbers/ >> >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bfd-optimizing-authentication/ >> >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bfd-stability/ >> >> >> Those documents were discussed extensively a few years ago but there have >> been a few changes since (e.g. use of ISAAC). >> >> IPR check was done a few years ago but it's been a while and there has >> been significant changes in the documents since then: >> 1- Authors, please respond whether you are aware of any undisclosed IPR. >> 2- Mahesh, Ankur and Ashesh, is this IPR >> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/3328/> still relevant/applicable to >> draft-ietf-bfd-optimizing-authentication? >> >> >> Regards, >> Reshad. >> >> >> >> >> >> Mahesh Jethanandani >> [email protected] >> >> >> >> > > Mahesh Jethanandani > [email protected] > > > > > > >
