Re: [I2nsf] need more review and support to close the WGLC for draft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm

Hi Tom and I2NSF WG,
Let me report the status of IPR Declaration on I2NSF Consumer-Facing
Interface YANG Data Model Draft and other drafts.
My SKKU Patent Attorney (Mr. Jeongnyeon Kim) posted an IPR declaration on
this  I2NSF Consumer-Facing Interface YANG Data Model Draft.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/5694/

According to my request, Mr. Jeongnyeon Kim has requested the update of the
licensing last week as follows:
-----
If this standard is adopted, Sungkyunkwan University (SKKU) will not assert
any patents owned or controlled by SKKU against any party for making,
using, selling, importing or offering for sale a product that implements
the standard, provided, however that SKKU retains the right to assert its
patents (including the right to claim past royalties) against any party
that asserts a patent it owns or controls (either directly or indirectly)
against SKKU or any of SKKU's affiliates or successors in title or against
any products of SKKU or any products of any of SKKU's affiliates either
alone or in combination with other products; and SKKU retains the right to
assert its patents against any product or portion thereof that is not
necessary for compliance with the standard. Royalty-bearing licenses will
be available to anyone who prefers that option.
-----
The above licensing was agreed by our I2NSF WG before.
This update is expected to be done next week.

For other I2NSF WG drafts, the update requests of the same correction of
the licensing text
have been submitted by Mr. Jeongnyeon Kim.
- I2NSF Capability YANG Data Model Draft
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/5689/

- I2NSF NSF-Facing Interface YANG Data Model Draft
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/5690/
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/5691/

- I2NSF Monitoring Interface YANG Data Model Draft
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/5692/
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/5693/

- I2NSF Registration Interface YANG Data Model Draft
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/5695/
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/5696/

For my individual I2NSF drafts, the same updates were requested by him.

Thanks.

Best Regards,
Paul

On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 1:00 AM tom petch <daedulus@btconnect.com> wrote:

> On 12/07/2022 18:44, Linda Dunbar wrote:
> > Sue,
> >
> > Thank you very much for the offer.
> >
> > The unsolved comments are from Tom Petch: Re: [I2nsf] WGLC for
> draft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm-16<
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/i2nsf/d_Wk5fH35Jo_cdz4D0QZN5VNhFA/>
> > There are several responses to address Tom Petch's comments. Just Tom
> hasn't sent feedback if he is satisfied with the response.
>
> Linda,
>
> I am sorry I have not got back to you; I did not realise that I was
> holding things up.  Meanwhile, another problem has arise.  Most of the
> activity on the WG mailing list recently has been ten IPR claims, one of
> which is against this I-D, for an unpublished patent, with possible
> Royalty/Fee.
>
> Similar claims were made three years ago, before I was involved, and the
> WG pushed back on this, that the usual reciprocity clause would be ok,
> possible Royalty/Fee would not be.  Were those who pushed back three
> years ago to see the latest claims, I would expect them to push back
> again.  To see the terms of these latest claims I find disappointing.
>
> I do not understand the details of the IPR claims; I am used to a claim
> being made against each successive version of an I-D up to an including
> the RFC.  Here, some at least of the claims would appear to relate to
> earlier versions and not the current one but since much of the text is
> in common, the choice of version seems irrelevant.  Also, some of the
> claims specify the relevant sections and one would appear to include the
> IANA Considerations which seems unusual while some of the claims are in
> CJK script which I do not read.
>
> I realise that the IETF takes no position on IPR claims, that the WG
> members have to decide whether or not to proceed with the work in the
> presence of a claim.  On one such previous occasion, the WG was
> satisfied that there was prior art which would invalidate the claim and
> so the work went ahead regardless of the claim; such a step is not
> possible with an unpublished patent.
>
> July is a hectic time for me so I shall look at the revised I-Ds but not
> just yet.  Whether or not I want to participate in the presence of the
> IPR claims, I am unsure.
>
> Tom Petch
>
> >
> > Linda
> >
> > From: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2022 12:21 PM
> > To: Linda Dunbar <linda.dunbar@futurewei.com>; i2nsf@ietf.org
> > Subject: RE: [I2nsf] need more review and support to close the WGLC for
> draft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm
> >
> > Linda:
> >
> > I will review the document by  Thursday (7/14) and send in a review of
> the document.   Would you let me know what WG LC comments were not
> addressed?
> >
> > Cheers, Sue
> >
> > From: I2nsf <i2nsf-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:i2nsf-bounces@ietf.org>> On
> Behalf Of Linda Dunbar
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2022 1:17 PM
> > To: i2nsf@ietf.org<mailto:i2nsf@ietf.org>
> > Subject: [I2nsf] need more review and support to close the WGLC for
> draft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm
> >
> >
> > I2NF WG,
> >
> > draft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm WGLC was inconclusive due
> to lack of support and some LC comments not properly addressed. There
> appeared to be limited reviews of the document during the WGLC
> > See the discussion history: [I2nsf] WGLC for
> draft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm-16<
> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmailarchive.ietf.org%2Farch%2Fmsg%2Fi2nsf%2FMFOohjnJ9fbylLB9eyccMRhrp04%2F&data=05%7C01%7Clinda.dunbar%40futurewei.com%7Cc95feb0ac382419474b808da642adfd0%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C637932432560667469%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=f9Jlz0HgQw7NO%2BKer356WyaN9toprO8WCPEUBGhkAXI%3D&reserved=0
> >
> >
> > To proceed to publication more reviews and support from the WG for
> publication is needed.
> > We really appreciate more people reviewing the document, especially the
> people who are not the authors.
> >
> > Thank you
> > Linda Dunbar
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> I2nsf mailing list
> I2nsf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf
>