On November 5, 2019 at 6:58:52 PM, Pete Resnick wrote: Pete: Hi! > Finally, my "interesting note": > > I see in the shepherd report: > > ---- > > (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR > disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 > and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why. > > Yes, there is IPR and it has been declared with #1713. > > (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? > If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR > disclosures. > > Yes, IPR has been declared and the WG has been notified. > > ---- > > That seems to indicate that nobody had any comment about the IPR declaration. > But I also see noted in the shepherd report, "Cisco has an implementation of > this protocol. No other vendors have indicated plan to implement the > specification". That leads to a pretty obvious question: Are other vendors not > implementing this because of the IPR (which you'd think would be a concern), or > are other vendors planning on implementing this in the future, or is this just > a Cisco-private extension that requires no interoperability? It seems curious > that there was no discussion at all. Not having discussions about IPR is normal in the Routing Area. I would consider having a discussion about it curious. ;-) The sentence you quoted above from the Shepherd report is incomplete, it says: “No other vendors have indicated plan to implement the specification but they support publication of this draft.” I don’t know the reasons why other vendors are not implementing — another obvious possibility is simply that they don’t have immediate customer demand. The WG is cc’d, so someone may want to chime in. The extension in this draft requires signaling and coordination between multiple routers; the dynamic nature of agreeing on which router is the GDR is what requires interoperability between the different routers. This type of load balancing can be useful wherever multiple PIM DRs exist, so I don’t think it can be considered a private extension, or applicable only in single-vendor deployments. Thanks for the careful review and for including interesting notes. Alvaro. -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
