RE: [dhcwg] IPR claims for <draft-ietf-dhc-subscriber-id-05.txt>

the timing is a bit unfortunate, but I agree with Ted that we should put
this draft on hold until the group has had an opportunity to review and
comment on the intellectual property rights claimed by PacketFront.  After
reading the notification referenced below, I find it impossible to tell what
is actually being claimed by PacketFront, as there is no description either
of intellectual property claimed by PacketFront or a description of how this
Internet-Draft infringes on their rights.

My inclination is to dismiss this out of hand as not being patentable as it
is an obvious and trivial extension to prior work, which any well-informed
practitioner could easily have suggested...  but then, I've not spent years
litigating patent claims.

I don't intend to imply that Richard, Theyn, and Mark's work is trivial, but
rather that it seems an obvious extension useful in several circumstances,
hardly the stuff of a patent claim.

Precisely because the proposed sub-option seems generally useful, I hesitate
in suggesting we should place the draft on hold, as this then provides a de
facto mechanism for vendors to halt IETF development of open standards by
claiming unsubstantiated intellectual property rights for almost anything.
Still, until the claimant specifically identifies what element(s) of this
draft infringe on their IPR I think we should not advance this draft.

--Barr

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ralph Droms
> Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2004 08:39
>
> The WG should be aware of the following notice of IPR claims related to
> 'DHCP Subscriber ID Suboption for the DHCP Relay Agent Option'
> <draft-ietf-dhc-subscriber-id-05.txt>.  The IPR claims are documented in
> http://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/PacketFront-IPR.txt
>

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