Re: [NSIS] IPR Disclosure: The Trustees of Columbia University inthe City of New York's Statement about IPRrelated to draft-ietf-nsis-tunnel-13

I have Columbia's backing to offer a Cisco style declaration of IPR.
This declaration may deprecate/take precedence over what was previously
submitted.  

Those that feel strongly about this may email me offline. 

As mentioned, I'd like to minimize the stepping of toes at this point
with the goal of maintaining the draft where it was.  If this is the
preferred route to do this then I'll plan to resubmit soon.  

Kind regards,

Calvin Chu
Senior Licensing Officer
Columbia Technology Ventures
http://techventures.columbia.edu
Tel: (212) 851-4140
Twitter: cchu

-----Original Message-----
From: nsis-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:nsis-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Calvin Chu
Sent: Friday, December 10, 2010 6:06 PM
To: Roland Bless
Cc: Georgios Karagiannis; nsis@ietf.org; Jukka Manner
Subject: Re: [NSIS] IPR Disclosure: The Trustees of Columbia University
inthe City of New York's Statement about IPRrelated to
draft-ietf-nsis-tunnel-13

See below, and here.

Currently I've made it a priority to review the Cisco style disclosure
with Columbia.  In the meantime, it's my priority to work out to the
satisfaction of the members here to allow this draft to remain.  I am
working on this.

Calvin Chu
Senior Licensing Officer
Columbia Technology Ventures
http://techventures.columbia.edu
Tel: (212) 851-4140
Twitter: cchu

-----Original Message-----
From: Roland Bless [mailto:roland.bless@kit.edu] 

Hi,

>Since we have an open implementation that's fine, but IMHO the
following
>cited text is not 100% clear that this is also guaranteed if the
>specification will once change to standards track. So if you could make
>it clear that the last point doesn't apply to the open-software and
>development activities, it would be better.

Regardless of track, if it's open source, then it's FREE. 

>> The other point of contention is the FRAND terms in the situation it
>> becomes a protocol standard, and even then, only in the non-open
source
>> case.  
>> 
>> Is the issue: A) The fact that the fee is unknown B) The fact that
there
>> is a fee at all or C) desire to see better conformance of disclosure
>> such as use of the Cisco style IPR disclosure

>I would say B) and A) in that order :-), i.e.
>if you remove any fee, it would cause no problem, but if you keep
>the fee, it would be good to say something about it.

I'm looking into the suggestion on the Cisco style IPR disclosure --
still need about a day or so to get some consensus.  

I was earlier under the impression that this RFC was unlikely to exit
Experimental status so no details were worked out for what that fee may
be.  It would be unacceptable to us for this fee to prohibit legitimate
use, except, at the time I entered the disclosure (as well as now), the
threshold for what would be prohibitive isn't known to me.  The members
of the list would likely know better than me on these matters.  

If it's case (A) above, we can declare a hard upper limit the
uncertainty is removed from the system.  If (A) is unacceptable at any
value, in any case, I'm simultaneously passing around the Cisco style
disclosure. 

_______________________________________________
nsis mailing list
nsis@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsis