Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-grand>

[Jen Linkova <[e-mail]>]

On Sat, Jul 18, 2020 at 6:39 PM Fernando Gont <[e-mail]> wrote:
> That said, I'm curious about the possible implications of the following
> IPR, in particular "Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory License to All
> Implementers with Possible Royalty/Fee"..
>
> Could this potentially mean that eventually some implementations might
> need to pay a Royalty/Fee to be fully compliant with the Neighbor
> Discovery spec?

Believe me, I'm very confused as well. I'm not a lawyer but my very
limited understanding  is  (again, it's quite possible I misunderstood
everything so pls take it with a grain of salt):
- the IPR claim does not actually mean that the specification update
in the draft is really patented.  It means that the draft describes
something related or similar to the patented technology.
- implementers, or their lawyers..or some other lawyer...would need to
assess if whatever they are going to implement is covered by the
patent or not, and act accordingly.
- my attempt of deciphering  the patent in question makes me believe
that that common element is creating a NC entry upon receiving an
unsolicited NA - which was never prohibited by RFC4861 in the first
place (it is saying 'SHOULD NOT'). However the patent seems to define
a machinery which is far more complicated than what the draft
describes.

-- 
SY, Jen Linkova aka Furry