RE: Issue found in RFC 3667 text

--On 28. april 2004 06:47 -0700 Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com> wrote:

> At 07:49 AM 04/28/04 -0400, Contreras, Jorge wrote:
>> As far as the second issue raised by Fred, that was an intentional
>> feature.  If a patent application has not been published and the
>> applicant  wishes to maintain the confidentiality of its contents, then
>> he/she should  not submit an ID covered by the application's claims
>> unless willing to  disclose enough to satisfy the 3668 requirements.
>
> IANAL, and Todd Glassey advises me that there is some recent case law
> that sets aside what I'm about to say. Legal comment would be instructive
> to the discussion.
>
> My understanding is that the confidentiality of the filing is not at his
> option. Since the claims have been neither supported or denied, he cannot
> say what IPR claims he might have. At most, he can say that he "may have
> IPR" related to the draft.

Fred,

at the risk of reflecting real practice:

I believe that 
<http://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/cisco-ipr-draft-ietf-tcpm-tcpsecure.txt> is a 
legitimate filing under the RFC 3668 rules.

The sum total of what it says about what the content of the pending patent 
application is:

Cisco is the owner of one or more pending patent applications relating to
the subject matter of "Transmission Control Protocol security
considerations" <draft-ietf-tcpm-tcpsecure-00.txt>.

I believe that's fair warning, and should be enough to allow the Cisco 
people who know about these patent applications to continue to work in the 
IETF.

I'd like a world where it was reasonable to say more. But I think saying 
that much is possible, and much preferable to saying nothing.

                      Harald

_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg