Re: [Idr] WG Adoption call for draft-wang-idr-rd-orf-05.txt (2/4/2021 to 2/18/2021)

[Aijun Wang <[e-mail]>]

Hi, John:

I am not the IPR experts, but it seems such clauses is the normal declaration within IETF community. Would you like to give other examples in IETF that may be more moderate?
If so, I can seek the opinions from our IPR experts and feedback.

Aijun Wang
China Telecom

> On Feb 12, 2021, at 06:36, john heasley <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 02:46:42AM -0500, Gyan Mishra:
>> 2) Should the WG consider this draft given it has an IPR claim
>> 
>> Yes
> 
> Why?  The IPR appears to indicate that if any entity that asserts any patent
> claim against CT, presumably due to infringement, should expect CT to assert
> a patent claim for this process.  Retaliatory patent enforcement.  Awesome.
> FRAND does not mean settlement-free, nor reasonable.
> 
>> or
>> 
>>    Would the IDR WG prefer another approach?
>> 
>> We have reviewed other approaches and this provides a finer grain approach
>> to dynamically mitigate VPN being overwhelmed by source PE RD offender.  We
>> have discussed other approaches and best practice such as VPN maximum
>> prefix as well as peer maximum prefix, however this feature resolves a gap
>> directly related to offending PE RD originator.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr