[mpls] Re: IPR poll on draft-li-mpls-mna-entropy

Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com> Tue, 01 October 2024 16:33 UTC

From: Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>
Message-Id: <A6E81029-BEF8-4C2E-A92E-1235BE50FE6A@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_49D53218-9CFF-4B44-A0A3-D8D38E859828"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3776.700.51\))
Date: Tue, 01 Oct 2024 17:33:39 +0100
In-Reply-To: <BEZP281MB2008BA2CEDFF48DC043D601098762@BEZP281MB2008.DEUP281.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
To: Nicolai Leymann <N.Leymann@telekom.de>
References: <BEZP281MB2008BA2CEDFF48DC043D601098762@BEZP281MB2008.DEUP281.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
Message-ID-Hash: 5ANTC2ETBHGTGEEEJHC6TSHQYX5WSXYC
CC: mpls <mpls@ietf.org>, mpls-chairs@ietf.org, draft-li-mpls-mna-entropy@ietf.org
Precedence: list
Subject: [mpls] Re: IPR poll on draft-li-mpls-mna-entropy
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/T-QBqI51EMnxArR0rYeo2zawZV4>

Are we sure that the IPR filed against RFC6790 is not of such generality that it also applies to this work? The patent claim text certainly seems quite general.

I know that the WG is sensitive to IPR on MNA as it previously rejected a solution based on it being encumbered by IPR, making this is an important point to consider.

Best regards

Stewart

> On 30 Sep 2024, at 13:49, N.Leymann@telekom.de wrote:
> 
> Hi Working Group and authors,
>  
> This email initiates an IPR poll draft-li-mpls-mna-entropy in anticipation of its Working Group adoption poll.
>  
> Are you aware of any IPR that applies to the draft identified above?
> Please state either:
> "No, I'm not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft"
> or
> "Yes, I'm aware of IPR that applies to this draft"
>  
> If your answer is yes, has this IPR been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules (see RFCs 3669, 5378 and 8179 for more details)?
> Please state either:
> "Yes, the IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules"
> or
> "No, the IPR has not been disclosed"
>  
> If your answer no, please provide any additional details you think appropriate.
> If you are listed as a document author or contributor please answer the above by responding to this email regardless of whether or not you are aware of any relevant IPR.
>  
> **The response needs to be sent to the MPLS WG mailing list.**
>  
> This document will not advance to the next stage until a response has been received from each author.
> Note, currently there is no IPR disclosure listed against this document.
>  
> If you are on the WG email list or attend WG meetings but are not listed as an author or contributor, we remind you of your obligations under the IETF IPR rules which encourages you to notify the IETF if you are aware of IPR of others on an IETF contribution, or to refrain from participating in any contribution or discussion related to your undisclosed IPR. For more information, please see the RFCs listed above and http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/iesg/trac/wiki/IntellectualProperty.
>  
> The authors/contributors that we expect responses from are:
> Tony Li
> John Drake
>  
> Regards
>  
> Nic (for the MPLS chairs)
>  
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list -- mpls@ietf.org <mailto:mpls@ietf.org>
> To unsubscribe send an email to mpls-leave@ietf.org <mailto:mpls-leave@ietf.org>

[mpls] IPR poll on draft-li-mpls-mna-entropy N.Leymann
[mpls] Re: IPR poll on draft-li-mpls-mna-entropy John Drake
[mpls] Re: IPR poll on draft-li-mpls-mna-entropy Tony Li
[mpls] Re: IPR poll on draft-li-mpls-mna-entropy Stewart Bryant
[mpls] Re: IPR poll on draft-li-mpls-mna-entropy Tony Li