[conex] Fwd: Re: Fwd: IPR Disclosure: British Telecommunications plc's statement about IPR claimed in draft-ietf-conex-abstract-mech-04.txt

[Bob Briscoe <[e-mail]>]

Marcelo, Nandita, Wes, ConEx list,

The IETF IPR administrator has now added the mistakenly omitted 
license terms to the end of the declaration, that is still at the same URL:
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1922/>



Bob

>Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2012 10:02:38 +0000
>To: marcelo bagnulo braun <[e-mail]>
>From: Bob Briscoe <[e-mail]>
>Subject: Re: [conex] Fwd: IPR Disclosure: British Telecommunications 
>plc's statement about IPR claimed in draft-ietf-conex-abstract-mech-04.txt
>Cc: "'ConEx IETF list'" <[e-mail]>
>
>Marcelo and the ConEx list (including authors of affected drafts),
>
>All these emails relate to the same screwed up IPR disclosure, which 
>was actually meant to be good news.
>
>This disclosure has been screwed up - our IPR dept sent text to the 
>IETF IPR people by email, who must have then transcribed it wrongly 
>into the form - omitting the actual licensing text sent by BT's lawyer.
>
>It was intended to offer a royalty-free license under terms 
>unchanged from the original IPR declaration for re-ECN 
><https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/651/>, which this declaration was 
>meant to update solely by adding more drafts and more patents.
>
>I have asked for the omitted license text to be added urgently.
>
>I have been asking for an update to this declaration since March 
>2011 (!!!). It has been frustrating for me, because I couldn't say 
>in advance what terms would be applied in the updated declaration, 
>because the lawyers (rightly) require that only they can state BT's 
>licensing terms.
>
>It has taken this long because the IETF IPR process first required 
>each draft to be declared individually, then when the IETF admitted 
>that all the drafts could be on one form, the form couldn't handle 
>the number of drafts, so the tools team had to modify the form software.
>
>Although I never expected it to take this long, I kept everyone 
>informed about this:
>* to the ConEx list and in my presentations during the ConEx BoFs (2010)
>* to the ConEx chairs and concepts-uses authors in response to a 
>question from Nandita when concepts uses went to the IESG (26 Mar 2012)
>
>
>Bob
>
>At 06:41 05/12/2012, marcelo bagnulo braun wrote:
>>and the last one (for now at least)
>>
>>
>>-------- Mensaje original --------
>>Asunto:         IPR Disclosure: British Telecommunications plc's 
>>statement about IPR claimed in draft-ietf-conex-abstract-mech-04.txt
>>Fecha:  Tue, 04 Dec 2012 14:56:49 -0800
>>De:     IETF Secretariat <[e-mail]>
>>Para:   [e-mail], [e-mail]
>>CC:     [e-mail], [e-mail], 
>>[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]
>>
>>
>>
>>Dear Matt Mathis, Bob J. Briscoe:
>>
>>  An IPR disclosure that pertains to your Internet-Draft entitled "Congestion
>>Exposure (ConEx) Concepts and Abstract Mechanism" (draft-ietf-conex-abstract-
>>mech) was submitted to the IETF Secretariat on 2012-11-22 and has 
>>been posted on
>>the "IETF Page of Intellectual Property Rights Disclosures"
>>(https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1922/). The title of the IPR disclosure is
>>"British Telecommunications plc's statement about IPR claimed in draft-ietf-
>>conex-abstract-mech-04.txt."");
>>
>>The IETF Secretariat
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>conex mailing list
>>[e-mail]
>>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/conex
>
>________________________________________________________________
>Bob Briscoe,                                BT Innovate & Design

________________________________________________________________
Bob Briscoe,                                BT Innovate & Design