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

Ted,

Thanks for the explanation. Some more questions.

> In the case of the Motorola patent on DHCP as a whole, whatever that 
> is, the WG was never, as far as I can recall, notified that Motorola 
> had made this claim.   In the case of the Cisco patent on DHCP as a 
> whole, again, the WG was never notified of this claim.   Had the WG 
> been notified of either of these claims, I can assure you that I would 
> have kicked up a fuss.

Right. Neither I (nor Ralph apparently) knew about it. That's
unfortunate, but may also have to do with failed (or lacking) internal
processes that would have ensured that the WG be notified whenever an
IPR statement is posted on the web site. That is being followed up
separately. 

> In this case, we have a patent on some very obvious technology that in 
> no way merits a patent.   We are being asked, as a group, to promote 
> this technology.   I am against promoting this technology if 
> PacketFront's purpose in acquiring this patent is to charge people 
> royalties under some definition of "reasonable."  I am pushing back on 
> this in hopes that PacketFront will clarify their intentions.   I 
> suspect that they acquired this patent for defensive reasons, and I 
> have complete sympathy with that, but if that is the case, I want them 
> to change the stated terms to reflect that.   If I don't push back, 
> PacketFront has no reason to change their terms, and this creates 
> uncertainty for implementors of DHCP: will PacketFront sue me?   Will 
> their license terms meet *my* definition of reasonable?

Understood. But one thing that I'm also trying to understand, is that
Cisco also has IPR on some other drafts, but has not stated that they
will license for free. (At least that is my understanding. I'm sure
someone will correct me if I have that wrong.) E.g., see
draft-ietf-dhc-agentopt-radius-03.txt, a document the WG has
recommended advancement of.  I think it would be helpful to understand
how the situation differs in this case.

> So I'm pushing back.   I hope that PacketFront's intentions are as I 
> suspect they are, and that as a result of this pushback they will 
> clarify their license terms.   If they do not, I am happy to just let 
> the technology go unimplemented - I don't think it's that important.

That is certainly a position you (and the WG as a whole - if this is
the direction it wants to go in) is free to take.

Thomas

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