Re: [Geopriv] IPR disclosure on draft-ietf-geopriv-deref-protocol

Could I just point out that discussion of the validity, or not, of the claims made in the declaration or in the claimed IPR itself are not something the working group should be discussing.

The WG merely needs to make a decision, based on the IPR declaration, and the references therefrom, as to whether it should proceed with the current technical solution, or to adopt an alternative technical solution (or no solution at all).

Saying "proceed" can encompass everything from "I don't believe the claims are valid" to "The claims are valid but I am prepared to pay the license fee to get this technical solution", but you don't need to tell the working group any of that, particularly if it leads to a discussion of whether your statement is correct or not.

Regards

Keith

> -----Original Message-----
> From: geopriv-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:geopriv-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
> Of Richard L. Barnes
> Sent: 19 July 2012 20:58
> To: geopriv@ietf.org
> Subject: [Geopriv] IPR disclosure on draft-ietf-geopriv-deref-protocol
> 
> Dear GEOPRIV,
> 
> An IPR disclosure has been filed against a GEOPPRIV document, draft-ietf-
> geopriv-deref-protocol.  This document has been through working group last
> call, IETF last call, and IESG approval.  Its last DISCUSS was cleared 12
> July 2012, but Robert is delaying final approval until this IPR question
> has been resolved.
> 
> Please send comment to the list by Friday, 20 July 2012, if you have
> concerns related to this IPR disclosure.
> 
> Note that the patent disclosed in this disclosure was also disclosed with
> regard to other GEOPRIV documents that proceeded to publication:
> RFC 3693: <https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/960/>
> RFC 4079: <https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/959/>
> RFC 4119: <https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/958/>
> 
> Thanks,
> GEOPRIV Chairs
> _______________________________________________
> Geopriv mailing list
> Geopriv@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv