[Autoconf] IPR on draft-boot-autoconf-brdp
Teco Boot <teco@inf-net.nl> Fri, 26 March 2010 21:59 UTC
Return-Path: <teco@inf-net.nl>
X-Original-To: autoconf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: autoconf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix)
with ESMTP id 3FD883A6958 for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>;
Fri, 26 Mar 2010 14:59:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.822
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.822 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.432,
BAYES_20=-0.74, DNS_FROM_OPENWHOIS=1.13]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com
[127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id grzsDh3NiV7U for
<autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Mar 2010 14:59:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vw0-f44.google.com (mail-vw0-f44.google.com
[209.85.212.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 679D53A699F for
<autoconf@ietf.org>; Fri, 26 Mar 2010 14:59:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by vws12 with SMTP id 12so2228489vws.31 for <autoconf@ietf.org>;
Fri, 26 Mar 2010 14:59:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.220.107.142 with SMTP id b14mr1034137vcp.30.1269640760902;
Fri, 26 Mar 2010 14:59:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dhcp-wireless-open-abg-24-146.meeting.ietf.org
([130.129.24.146]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id
5sm3240965qwg.48.2010.03.26.14.59.18 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5);
Fri, 26 Mar 2010 14:59:20 -0700 (PDT)
From: Teco Boot <teco@inf-net.nl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2010 22:59:16 +0100
Message-Id: <6F5F8F06-E4E2-4363-BA45-A5307B8566CC@inf-net.nl>
To: autoconf@ietf.org
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1077)
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1077)
Cc: standards-ipr@cisco.com, "Pascal Thubert \(pthubert\)" <pthubert@cisco.com>,
dlang@cisco.com
Subject: [Autoconf] IPR on draft-boot-autoconf-brdp
X-BeenThere: autoconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Ad-Hoc Network Autoconfiguration WG discussion list
<autoconf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf>,
<mailto:autoconf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/autoconf>
List-Post: <mailto:autoconf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:autoconf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf>,
<mailto:autoconf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2010 21:59:11 -0000
The IPR issue on building trees popped up during the Autoconf meeting. I can say BRDP is inspired by TD, but have a very different target. I checked again the patents in the claim on RPL. My opinion is that the patents are NOT applicable to BRDP. This because BRDP is NOT about building topologies and NOT about routing. The patents are. There is a BRDP related draft on routing: draft-boot-brdp-based-routing. This is a very different approach than what is described in the patents. My proposal leaves providing paths to the routing protocol. Pointers to the RPL IPR topic: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/roll/current/msg03095.html https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1270/ To repeat Pascal: 1) I'm not a lawyer, and 2) even less your own lawyer. If I'm wrong, I expect Cisco takes action. Even if Cisco claims, I think there is no problem, with the outcome in ROLL in mind. Also, Cisco was aware of my work from the very beginning. The IPR issue never raised. Regards, Teco
- [Autoconf] IPR on draft-boot-autoconf-brdp Teco Boot
- Re: [Autoconf] IPR on draft-boot-autoconf-brdp Pascal Thubert (pthubert)