IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Second Last Call: <draft-ietf-sieve-notify-sip-message-08.txt> (Sieve Notification Mechanism: SIP MESSAGE) to Proposed Standard

Hector Santos <hsantos@isdg.net> Fri, 27 January 2012 04:07 UTC

Return-Path: <hsantos@isdg.net>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6A6921F85EA for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Jan 2012 20:07:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.074
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.074 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.597, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_NET=0.611, HOST_MISMATCH_COM=0.311, J_CHICKENPOX_35=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_43=0.6]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vmRJpc5vZy1i for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Jan 2012 20:07:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.catinthebox.net (mail.winserver.com [208.247.131.9]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C912321F85CE for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Jan 2012 20:07:27 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; d=isdg.net; s=tms1; a=rsa-sha1; c=simple/relaxed; l=1440; t=1327637237; h=Received:Received: Received:Received:Message-ID:Date:From:Organization:To:Subject: List-ID; bh=QLyKoJrTkLH3ZVukq8k4vUQyGrQ=; b=r1M6xOA3jP/nN8ylkTFI bsCmeF6eMAkOZjDGJ1MRNTpXLT1EwCLlabyTtfxVNPuT1Hf4jSL8EusNQxFx1LCc GGhz9vlunGzctnKrVE0ahmopoYbCmNN7K2wLb/rUV9sbIOGMakJrUE/3TZUM7MAn QWlolMVWRfgVNpm57nHhhGo=
Received: by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP Router v6.4.454.1) for ietf@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jan 2012 23:07:17 -0500
Authentication-Results: dkim.winserver.com; dkim=pass header.d=beta.winserver.com header.s=tms1 header.i=beta.winserver.com; adsp=pass policy=all author.d=isdg.net asl.d=beta.winserver.com;
Received: from beta.winserver.com ([208.247.131.23]) by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP v6.4.454.1) with ESMTP id 839108040.59176.3972; Thu, 26 Jan 2012 23:07:16 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; d=beta.winserver.com; s=tms1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/relaxed; l=1440; t=1327637040; h=Received:Received: Message-ID:Date:From:Organization:To:Subject:List-ID; bh=La0cSqo 3fMQZ0jWB36ubfGOKgv9Tk6ZFBMyJRX/w9WA=; b=mYvqc4l3xzW0vx8ptvhFlUO KKiR1JQ7Y3MtLq4qpox84ghfrVj+LaIMDUvrKnxEdkaP/fFx8wlovTedWC3Y8JRI 0JV0CsTV/fXJ26+VYMgF+s3DChOTs0m7XN82ipH21OCOMZ3W08BP+5NlfdsDiU+J dzdLEafjY7gOJc+EJTyA=
Received: by beta.winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP Router v6.4.454.1) for ietf@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jan 2012 23:04:00 -0500
Received: from [192.168.1.101] ([99.3.147.93]) by beta.winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP v6.4.454.1) with ESMTP id 1438062829.10502.3820; Thu, 26 Jan 2012 23:03:59 -0500
Message-ID: <4F222304.70408@isdg.net>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 23:07:32 -0500
From: Hector Santos <hsantos@isdg.net>
Organization: Santronics Software, Inc.
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (Windows/20100228)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
Subject: Re: Second Last Call: <draft-ietf-sieve-notify-sip-message-08.txt> (Sieve Notification Mechanism: SIP MESSAGE) to Proposed Standard
References: <20120125201714.3903.82295.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <4F2075BE.5070201@nostrum.com> <033901ccdbab$6bae0900$430a1b00$@olddog.co.uk> <CD5674C3CD99574EBA7432465FC13C1B226F573BC9@DC-US1MBEX4.global.avaya.com> <4F208AEF.5060406@qualcomm.com> <CD5674C3CD99574EBA7432465FC13C1B226F573BCE@DC-US1MBEX4.global.avaya.com> <4F21ABF2.7040002@qualcomm.com> <6842.1327617385@marajade.sandelman.ca> <F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F19C9A7D9F5@EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com> <CAC4RtVBfe5G=eEotH3gceVCm9grc7qxCT1siykbF+cHeNdArxA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAC4RtVBfe5G=eEotH3gceVCm9grc7qxCT1siykbF+cHeNdArxA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 04:07:29 -0000

Barry Leiba wrote:

> I am not a lawyer, but I don't think the license terms are at issue
> here.  As I understand it, the terms that Huawei has been specifying
> in its disclosures are defensive, and shouldn't restrict standards
> implementations.  The issue we're discussing isn't the terms, but that
> the disclosures weren't made when they should have been.

Personally, that isn't the main problem.

Sure, if its their position its more of an defensive patent to combat 
the reality of dealing patent trolls, that is good news.

Unfortunately, Business Methods patents don't require the "unique 
part" in the integration of unrestricted parts and it covers the basic 
idea of just the integration. Thats a major conflict in an IETF 
environment which has untold thousands of parts.  So today, its 
SIP+SIEVE.  How about tomorrow with DKIM+SIP or in more general, 
RFC_X+RFC_Y?

My concern is that it should not be necessary to disclosed because the 
IETF parts are already public domain.  The idea of integration two of 
them, which is part for the course today MUST not open a can of worms 
where you are allowed to do this.

IOW, Barry, Are we opening that door that combing any two or more IETF 
technologies is ok to patent (not the method in combining) as long as 
they submit an IPR claim at the same thing of the I-D submission?


-- 
Hector Santos, CTO
http://www.santronics.com
http://santronics.blogspot.com

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email