Re: a letter

Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com> Fri, 22 March 1996 18:02 UTC

Received: from ietf.cnri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa20463; 22 Mar 96 13:02 EST
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa20459; 22 Mar 96 13:02 EST
Received: from ietf.cnri.reston.va.us by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa04283; 22 Mar 96 13:02 EST
Received: from ietf.cnri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa20449; 22 Mar 96 13:02 EST
Received: from stilton.cisco.com by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa20445; 22 Mar 96 13:02 EST
Received: from [171.69.128.114] (fred-mac-fr.cisco.com [171.69.128.114]) by stilton.cisco.com (8.6.8+c/8.6.5) with SMTP id KAA10454 for <iesg@ietf.cnri.reston.va.us>; Fri, 22 Mar 1996 10:02:23 -0800
X-Sender: fred@stilton.cisco.com
Message-Id: <v02140b44ad789316e267@[171.69.128.114]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 1996 10:02:26 -0800
To: iesg@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
X-Orig-Sender: iesg-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: a letter

At 10:26 AM 3/21/96, Steve Coya wrote:
>>> After its issuance, Matsushita/Panasonic is also willing to license
>>> the patent on a non-exclusive, non-discriminatory basis and on
>>> reasonable terms and conditions for use with the Mobile IP.

Let's see, should hold up Mobile IP for a couple of years while we
deliberate on intellectual property? :^(

How come the PPP WG needed a variance before the IESG could even think
about CCP, but we have mobility is in last call with a patent claim
pending? What am I missing here?

Not that I want to slow it down - heavens no - I'm just missing something here.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
It has recently been discovered that research causes cancer in rats.