[dhcwg] IPR disclosures for active-leasequery drafts

Tomek Mrugalski <tomasz.mrugalski@gmail.com> Fri, 11 April 2014 18:14 UTC

Return-Path: <tomasz.mrugalski@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9311E1A075C for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 11 Apr 2014 11:14:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dwoXp6BbstCZ for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 11 Apr 2014 11:14:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ee0-x22c.google.com (mail-ee0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4013:c00::22c]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE8461A074C for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 11 Apr 2014 11:14:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ee0-f44.google.com with SMTP id e49so4402274eek.17 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 11 Apr 2014 11:14:27 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=p1wTvzTpMwBND7wg6kZvNDFRWpFKKUPDJ02KDjdT4jk=; b=zSUpa5fuO89d7j138yOhi9QK5Y5h8aX2KlM75Md/zeRY8sxDLPREhHjBrnlDplP5OQ y3I4BljNjRL+zT86/nYizOvO+a4kO5br8cXwx1fRcFdu/qTIUdRUa9iKENsJxomguEPN YWGQWV2/dqLzVSbpnecAJDvGI9JQUtlXdrWNL3hF0rQnlYteZwhonlznvfY45JyQSQq5 vXgVW2bZtdNzzLmhlu2xslnUqYbVAS7f71H7w7YcBLn7TrbhJSm75S/AChIv6/qU/NdN Yxg3uniocRacctuo1Sy8tgxsmYi89V9UmLzCUabOlutkO6wJpu5n2RnDhFh5GUpEfj6R 7kKA==
X-Received: by 10.15.61.133 with SMTP id i5mr4464675eex.80.1397240067849; Fri, 11 Apr 2014 11:14:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.0.100] (109107011157.gdansk.vectranet.pl. [109.107.11.157]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id t50sm19346814eev.28.2014.04.11.11.14.23 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 11 Apr 2014 11:14:24 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <534830FD.7040701@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2014 20:14:21 +0200
From: Tomek Mrugalski <tomasz.mrugalski@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dhcwg <dhcwg@ietf.org>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/UWiNFW-35YW-3DYOlpd8jttjtnU
Subject: [dhcwg] IPR disclosures for active-leasequery drafts
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dhcwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2014 18:14:31 -0000

Recently two drafts defining active-leasequery for both DHCPv4 and
DHCPv6 passed WGLC. Shepherds and chairs noticed that for both there
were IPR disclosures, but that fact was never emphasized during the WGLC.

I just thought that it would be useful to mention that there are IPR
disclosures for both draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-active-leasequery-00 and
draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-active-leasequery-01. That fact is clearly visible
in datatracker (http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/dhc/) or using IPR search
(http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/).

Please note that Cisco acted very responsibly here by submitting the IPR
disclosures promptly, mere days after individual draft submissions.
Normally, IPR submissions are sent to the mailing lists, but those
particular IPRs were sent when the drafts were still individual work,
hence no WG posts.

The IPRs are:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1278/ (for DHCPv4 active leasequery)
http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2210/ (for DHCPv6 active leasequery)

I'm not a lawyer, but my layman interpretation is that both IPRs are
very benign. In my understanding Cisco allows to do whatever you want
with the standard (implement, use, sell, export) and they will not sue
you, but they reserve their right to use that patent for defence if you
sue them.

I just though it would be useful to mention that on WG for full
transparency.

Tomek (draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-active-leasequery shepherd)