Re: Late IPR disclosure on RFC7024 - Opinions ?

"Thomas D. Nadeau" <tnadeau@lucidvision.com> Thu, 23 October 2014 19:37 UTC

Return-Path: <tnadeau@lucidvision.com>
X-Original-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E80121ACFDB; Thu, 23 Oct 2014 12:37:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.911
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.911 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Iu0EhEkZ7ivH; Thu, 23 Oct 2014 12:37:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lucidvision.com (lucidvision.com [72.71.250.34]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 636B31ACFDA; Thu, 23 Oct 2014 12:37:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.123] (static-72-71-250-38.cncdnh.fast04.myfairpoint.net [72.71.250.38]) by lucidvision.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DA9728D3C87; Thu, 23 Oct 2014 15:37:21 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_875C18BC-00A4-4CB9-90D4-68E63DDF0C89"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.0 \(1990.1\))
Subject: Re: Late IPR disclosure on RFC7024 - Opinions ?
From: "Thomas D. Nadeau" <tnadeau@lucidvision.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+b+ER=WENsHrD8hFmoceVUd3qDNSBXE13xPCoEijtwzhJ9c8Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2014 15:37:21 -0400
Message-Id: <DD268913-1F0E-40A5-A98D-85BB31FFEAC2@lucidvision.com>
References: <544404B6.4060605@alcatel-lucent.com> <5449476C.1080307@queuefull.net> <CA+b+ER=WENsHrD8hFmoceVUd3qDNSBXE13xPCoEijtwzhJ9c8Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1990.1)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/l3vpn/hfq9UJkm4K5RpDlKm2Gvunp7Mg8
Cc: L3VPN <l3vpn@ietf.org>, "bess@ietf.org" <bess@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: l3vpn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: <l3vpn.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/l3vpn>, <mailto:l3vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/l3vpn/>
List-Post: <mailto:l3vpn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:l3vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l3vpn>, <mailto:l3vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2014 19:37:25 -0000

> On Oct 23, 2014:3:22 PM, at 3:22 PM, Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> wrote:
> 
> 
> Looking at this I am not sure what the problem is ? 
> 
> If I am not mistaken none of the RFC7024 authors are associated with the IPR disclosure neither are even listed in the ack section. 
> 
> Chairs normally ask only authors for IPR statement. 

	Chairs poll the authors and the WG.  Anyone attending the meetings, or otherwise “participating” is bound by the Note Well rules.

> Anyone can patent anything and this is even patent outside of US. 
> 
> In any case to see the details one should examine what exactly has been patented in 2003. Quick patent search around 2003 with the same authors reveals a few patents for "hub-and-spoke for virtual private networks". 
> 
> But let's observe that the above is technically slightly different then "virtual hub and spoke idea" which perhaps some legal skilled folks may not be able to easily grasp ;-)

	It is ill advised and strongly discouraged to discuss details of IPR on the IETF mailing lists. 

	—Tom



> 
> Best,
> r.
> 
> 
> On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 8:22 PM, Benson Schliesser <bensons@queuefull.net <mailto:bensons@queuefull.net>> wrote:
> Hi, Martin -
> 
> Just to be clear, can you elaborate on what you see as the options here?
> 
> I could imagine some combination of choices: 1) keeping the status quo, acknowledging that the new IPR has been disclosed, and continuing to proceed with the document as-is, 2) changing status to something other than Proposed Standard, 3) revising the content (e.g. as a new RFC?) to avoid IPR issues that are objectionable, or 4) evaluating alternatives.
> 
> Are you also aware of any options for a punitive response? I'm not sure whether this would be against the inventors, company that owns the IPR, employees of that company that should have known about the IPR, etc. I'm also not sure what this punitive response would actually be. BCP 79 doesn't seem to outline anything in this direction. But it seems clear to me that the recent trends in late IPR disclosure are a problem for the IETF.
> 
> Thanks for any feedback you can give.
> -Benson
> 
> 
>> 	Martin Vigoureux <mailto:martin.vigoureux@alcatel-lucent.com>	October 19, 2014 at 2:36 PM
>> Working Group, 
>> 
>> we've received couple months ago an extremely late IPR disclosure (much later than what can be expected as per rules in BCP79) against RFC 7024: 
>> 
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2415/ <https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2415/> 
>> 
>> Please take a careful look at the licensing declaration and let us know whether this is subject to question RFC 7024 (both in its content and/or status). 
>> 
>> Thank you 
>> 
>> M&T 
>> 
>