IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dhcwg] IPR statement related to draft-ietf-dhc-subscriber-id-X.txt

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Fri, 06 February 2004 19:23 UTC

Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA10956 for <dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Fri, 6 Feb 2004 14:23:23 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ApBZ2-0005B4-Cd for dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 06 Feb 2004 14:22:56 -0500
Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i16JMusT019902 for dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 6 Feb 2004 14:22:56 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ApBZ2-0005Av-66 for dhcwg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 06 Feb 2004 14:22:56 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA10935 for <dhcwg-web-archive@ietf.org>; Fri, 6 Feb 2004 14:22:52 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ApBYz-000596-00 for dhcwg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 06 Feb 2004 14:22:53 -0500
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1ApBY5-00055l-00 for dhcwg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 06 Feb 2004 14:21:57 -0500
Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ApBXB-00052r-00 for dhcwg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 06 Feb 2004 14:21:01 -0500
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ApBXA-000518-6C; Fri, 06 Feb 2004 14:21:00 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ApBX8-00050s-KR for dhcwg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 06 Feb 2004 14:20:58 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA10839 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 6 Feb 2004 14:20:55 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ApBX6-000524-00 for dhcwg@ietf.org; Fri, 06 Feb 2004 14:20:56 -0500
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1ApBW8-0004yt-00 for dhcwg@ietf.org; Fri, 06 Feb 2004 14:19:57 -0500
Received: from toccata.fugue.com ([204.152.186.142]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ApBVi-0004vo-00 for dhcwg@ietf.org; Fri, 06 Feb 2004 14:19:30 -0500
Received: from [10.0.1.2] (dsl093-187-232.chi2.dsl.speakeasy.net [66.93.187.232]) by toccata.fugue.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5B661B2282 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 6 Feb 2004 13:09:05 -0600 (CST)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v612)
In-Reply-To: <42FF6BAC-58D4-11D8-A6E8-000A95D9C74C@fugue.com>
References: <200402061517.i16FH8pP020309@rotala.raleigh.ibm.com> <42FF6BAC-58D4-11D8-A6E8-000A95D9C74C@fugue.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Message-Id: <65244DBE-58D9-11D8-A6E8-000A95D9C74C@fugue.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] IPR statement related to draft-ietf-dhc-subscriber-id-X.txt
Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2004 13:19:33 -0600
To: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.612)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Feb 6, 2004, at 12:42 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
> I don't think the situation is any different.

To clarify, I don't think that there should be a double standard where 
we hassle PacketFront and Motorola about their IPR terms and don't 
hassle Cisco.   I think that Cisco should be held to the same standard. 
   Are any of the drafts about which Cisco has made IPR claims currently 
in last call?


_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email