Subject: [dtn] Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-ietf-dtn-bpsec-25: (with COMMENT)

From: Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 Dec 2020 22:53:17 -0800

Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dtn-bpsec-25: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dtn-bpsec/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

The shepherd writeup, last updated over a year ago, indicates a possible IPR
issue that the WG was investigating at that time.  Was this resolved?

Quite a lot of text changed in this document between the last time it came to
the IESG and now, including some new normative text, but the document history
doesn't show anything about a second last call either in the WG or in the IETF
generally.  Should there have been one?

---

From: Magnus Westerlund <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2020 08:44:28 +0000

Hi Murray,

This appears to be something where I should respond.

> issue that the WG was investigating at that time.  Was this resolved?

So this was further investigated and I concluded that there was no one neither
primary authors or anyone else that thought the mentioned IPR was relevant and
thus necessary to do a IPR declaration:

My message to the wg.
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dtn/QFco6ipa5o5s-usycxuIm9SaFj0

> generally.  Should there have been one?

All of the changes to this document set have been discussed in both DTN WG
meetings and on the mailing list. So I think the WG is well aware of what has
changed. To answer frankly, I think the answer is maybe. To error on the side of
safety we should run another IETF LC on these documents to ensure the consensus
on them. Lets discuss this in today's telechat. 

Cheers

Magnus