Re: [dhcwg] IPR disclosure and <draft-ietf-dhc-subscriber-id-06.txt>

Ted Lemon <> Thu, 03 June 2004 22:34 UTC

Received: from ( []) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA29409; Thu, 3 Jun 2004 18:34:18 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([] by with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BW0Md-00035v-S7; Thu, 03 Jun 2004 18:07:07 -0400
Received: from ([] by with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BVzhe-0006oK-Eh for; Thu, 03 Jun 2004 17:24:46 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx ( []) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA19371 for <>; Thu, 3 Jun 2004 17:24:43 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ([] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BVzhd-0005lA-0z for; Thu, 03 Jun 2004 17:24:45 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BVzW5-00038P-00 for; Thu, 03 Jun 2004 17:12:50 -0400
Received: from ([]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BVzKu-0000NJ-00 for; Thu, 03 Jun 2004 17:01:16 -0400
Received: from [] ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA16C1B3E6B; Thu, 3 Jun 2004 16:00:09 -0500 (CDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v618)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Message-Id: <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Ted Lemon <>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] IPR disclosure and <draft-ietf-dhc-subscriber-id-06.txt>
Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2004 14:00:43 -0700
To: Naiming Shen <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.618)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc:, Bud Millwood <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Jun 3, 2004, at 10:13 AM, Naiming Shen wrote:
> Have you read the page on ?

Personally, I don't care if the RFCs are free from IPR claims, and 
indeed the mere lack of IPR claims in the IETF IPR repository doesn't 
mean no such claims exist.   However, I do think that we shouldn't 
advance drafts to RFC when there are IPR claims on the technology in 
the draft unless either there is a really strong need for the 
technology described in the draft that overrides our concerns about IPR 
issues, or the IPR notice includes a disclaimer that offers real 
protection to implementors as well as to the person who is making the 
IPR claim.

And just to be clear, the IETF's assertions regarding the text of 
internet drafts is a very different thing than patents.   I think we're 
mostly concerned about patents here, although certainly we also don't 
want to put copyrighted text into RFCs where we don't have permission 
to do so.

dhcwg mailing list