JP,
Thanks for your proposals.
After consultation, I find that under the new IPR rules we do not make
specific reference to IPR disclosures in I-Ds or RFCs. Instead, the
boilerplate says that there "may be" IPR claims, and refers the reader
to
the Web pages. This is a future-proof technique.
Therefore, I have tweaked your suggestions below.
1. Text is added to the I-D as follows.
The procedures described in this document are the subject of an
Intellectual Property Rights claim. For this reason, the procedures
are
entirely optional within an MPLS or GMPLS network. Implementations
that
do not support the procedures described in this document will
interoperate seamlessly with those that do.
Further, an implementation that does not support the procedures
described in this document will not be impacted or implicated by a
neighboring implementation that does implement the procedures.
Replace this paragraph with...
The procedures described in this document are
entirely optional within an MPLS or GMPLS network. Implementations that
do not support the procedures described in this document will
interoperate seamlessly with those that do.
Further, an implementation that does not support the procedures
described in this document will not be impacted or implicated by a
neighboring implementation that does implement the procedures.
An ingress implementation that chooses not to support the procedures
described in this document may still achieve re-optimization by
periodically issuing a speculative make-before-break replacement of an
LSP without trying to discovery whether a more optimal path is
available in a downstream domain. Such a procedure would not be in
conflict with any mechanisms not already documented in [RFC3209] and
[RFC3473].
Second paragraph is fine.
2. The I-D should be updated with comments arising from the WG last
call.
Yes please.
3. The I-D should be progressed as an informational RFC
Yes. This is advisable.
Please update the I-D and submit it. I will then forward it to Alex
for AD
review.
Cheers,
Adrian