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

Hi Ted.

> On Feb 5, 2004, at 5:43 PM, Ralph Droms wrote:
> >     If a document based on this draft becomes an IETF standard 
> > PacketFront is
> >     prepared to license, on reasonable and non-discriminatory terms, 
> > any
> >     related PacketFront patents to the extent required to comply with
> >     the standard.

> > This new IPR statement is compatible with the text in section 10.3.2(C)
> > of RFC 2026, and with similar IPRs on other IETF documents.  Are there
> > any objections now to resuming consideration of
> > draft-ietf-dhc-subscriber-id-05.txt as a Proposed Standard?

> Yes.   I object, unless PacketFront states that they are willing to 
> license this for free to people who agree to cross-license.   This 
> functionality doesn't deserve a patent, and isn't useful enough to 
> merit advancing since it is encumbered by patent applications.

Note: each WG member needs to decide for themselves whether or not to
support advancement of this spec based on whatever concerns (including
IPR) they have.

But I at least would like to understand why Ted (and others?)  believe
that the above terms should be required before advancing this
document, when other DHC documents also with IPR terms that are not
"free" have apparently not raised a similar concern. That is, what are
the issues that make this case different than others? I think it would
be good to understand what the general criteria would be, as the issue
will likely come up again in the future (that is unfortunately the
reality).

E.g., see
http://www.ietf.cnri.reston.va.us/ietf/IPR/cisco-ipr-draft-ietf-dhc-server-override.txt

Thomas

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