Re: [Idr] IPR in draft-ietf-idr-bgp-optimal-route-reflection-14 [was: Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-idr-bgp-optimal-route-reflection-14]

Hey Robert,

I think there is a big misunderstanding here. I have the data to back up what I said. The question is how do we go about discussing and resolving it gracefully. I am happy to provide the data and work with you and John towards a resolution.

Serpil

From: Idr <idr-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
Date: Friday, October 13, 2017 at 2:32 PM
To: "John G. Scudder" <jgs@juniper.net>
Cc: idr wg <idr@ietf.org>, Kevin Wang <kfwang@juniper.net>
Subject: Re: [Idr] IPR in draft-ietf-idr-bgp-optimal-route-reflection-14 [was: Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-idr-bgp-optimal-route-reflection-14]

Hi John and WG,

Thank you for your note.

While I am still in process of getting full clarification from Cisco on what has been filed without authors knowledge I think the message you got from Serpil is incorrect.

To the best of my current understanding cisco filed some patents with claims describing implementation solutions used to implement ideas from ORR document not to claim IPR rights to such ideas itself.

Both are very different and I do not understand while the former would in any way impact the IETF process.

Kind regards,
Robert.

On Oct 13, 2017 4:53 PM, "John G. Scudder" <jgs@juniper.net<mailto:jgs@juniper.net>> wrote:
Hi Everyone,

On Oct 6, 2017, at 1:30 PM, John Scudder <jgs@juniper.net<mailto:jgs@juniper.net>> wrote:
> Authors, please confirm that any relevant IPR has been disclosed.

I was just told by Serpil Bayraktar that Cisco has IPR related to this spec. She is working with their legal department to disclose it, and of course as soon as the disclosure is available we'll notify the WG.

Naturally we will keep the WGLC open until the IPR disclosure has been published and the WG has had a chance to consider it.

I want to thank Serpil for her diligence in bringing this to my attention as soon as she became aware of it. This is as good a time as any to remind everyone of the Note Well we all see multiple times per meeting as well as when we sign up for a mailing list: https://www.ietf.org/about/note-well.html. In particular, see https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8179.txt, "Intellectual Property Rights in IETF Technology", which is linked from the Note Well, which describes the who, what and when in detail. Let me quote the beginning of the Note Well here:

"Any submission to the IETF intended by the Contributor for publication as all or part of an IETF Internet-Draft or RFC and any statement made within the context of an IETF activity is considered an "IETF Contribution". Such statements include oral statements in IETF sessions, as well as written and electronic communications made at any time or place..."

and so on.

While we're at it, I will note that four of the authors -- Robert Raszuk, Bruno Decraene, Eric Aman, and Adam Chappell -- have said they didn't know of any IPR, so presumably this comes as a surprise to them. I have not seen replies to this question from Stephane Litkowski, Christian Cassar or Kevin Wang yet, I've cc'd them.

Regards,

--John
_______________________________________________
Idr mailing list
Idr@ietf.org<mailto:Idr@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr