IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [hrpc] Patents in draft-tenoever-hrpc-research-05

Niels ten Oever <niels@article19.org> Tue, 20 September 2016 07:42 UTC

Return-Path: <niels@article19.org>
X-Original-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E3C512B653 for <hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Sep 2016 00:42:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.121
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.121 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zT0QHpCYTU1B for <hrpc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Sep 2016 00:42:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.article19.io (vps784.greenhost.nl [213.108.108.114]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 226BF12B657 for <hrpc@irtf.org>; Tue, 20 Sep 2016 00:42:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.article19.io (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.article19.io (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E45B8C7B9C5A; Tue, 20 Sep 2016 07:42:06 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail.article19.io (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.article19.io (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D441414122BD1; Tue, 20 Sep 2016 07:42:06 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [10.9.0.26] (tunnel.greenhost.nl [195.190.28.22]) by mail.article19.io (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id ADD5BC7B9C5A; Tue, 20 Sep 2016 07:42:06 +0000 (UTC)
To: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
References: <20160918193829.GA27308@sources.org> <3112c805-66db-ed18-9f0f-42137938db80@article19.org> <20160919195546.GA23686@sources.org>
From: Niels ten Oever <niels@article19.org>
Message-ID: <6879ccfc-861d-480e-d477-39d5d97364c0@article19.org>
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2016 09:42:05 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/45.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20160919195546.GA23686@sources.org>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="qSFuj30DL8wGlFdqhWatSuRk3KAtM4BI3"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/hrpc/l14VkfOFtqQmPh79LGVZYeltoKQ>
Cc: hrpc@irtf.org
Subject: Re: [hrpc] Patents in draft-tenoever-hrpc-research-05
X-BeenThere: hrpc@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "niels@article19.org" <hrpc.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/hrpc>, <mailto:hrpc-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/hrpc/>
List-Post: <mailto:hrpc@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:hrpc-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc>, <mailto:hrpc-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2016 07:42:11 -0000

> 
> Another issue with the current wording is that it seems to say that it
> is up to the RFC / protocol author to check / inquire on possible
> patents, a huge task. (And it is very different from IETF policy,
> which requires no such effort.)
> 

The text reads:

   Are you aware of any patents that would prevent your standard
   from being fully implemented [RFC3979] [RFC6701]?

Is does not say: you MUST check all potential patents on the technology
used to implement your protocol.

So I don't share your concerns and I do not think a necessary check /
inquiry is invoked by this guideline question.

Best,

Niels

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email