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

Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com> Wed, 15 December 2010 18:06 UTC

Return-Path: <fred@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: nsis@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: nsis@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 320873A6FE5 for <nsis@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Dec 2010 10:06:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.436
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.436 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.163, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7x0uHX57QyDE for <nsis@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Dec 2010 10:06:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sj-iport-1.cisco.com (sj-iport-1.cisco.com [171.71.176.70]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E15C13A6FBD for <nsis@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Dec 2010 10:06:41 -0800 (PST)
Authentication-Results: sj-iport-1.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvsEAAuTCE2rR7H+/2dsb2JhbACkLHOoAZtVAoMKgj4EhGSBMIQcS4MW
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.59,350,1288569600"; d="scan'208";a="391345158"
Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com ([171.71.177.254]) by sj-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 15 Dec 2010 18:08:24 +0000
Received: from stealth-10-32-244-221.cisco.com (stealth-10-32-244-221.cisco.com [10.32.244.221]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id oBFI8JZS015323; Wed, 15 Dec 2010 18:08:24 GMT
Received: from [127.0.0.1] by stealth-10-32-244-221.cisco.com (PGP Universal service); Wed, 15 Dec 2010 10:08:24 -0800
X-PGP-Universal: processed; by stealth-10-32-244-221.cisco.com on Wed, 15 Dec 2010 10:08:24 -0800
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082)
From: Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <4D0891D1.9090809@tkk.fi>
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 10:08:10 -0800
Message-Id: <B3B0C891-FD58-4EFA-A403-A858E06CDE3B@cisco.com>
References: <FBC92463F12E5849A42E8995D9D79D5F76E4CE@CUIT-EXCHANGE2.ais.columbia.edu> <AVJr2JlT.1291877732.6009140.karagian@ewi.utwente.nl> <FBC92463F12E5849A42E8995D9D79D5F76E76F@CUIT-EXCHANGE2.ais.columbia.edu> <4D01E7F2.80704@kit.edu> <FBC92463F12E5849A42E8995D9D79D5F76E93A@CUIT-EXCHANGE2.ais.columbia.edu> <20643_1292279835_ZZ0LDE00CUU1I2K0.00_FBC92463F12E5849A42E8995D9D79D5F8138B5@CUIT-EXCHANGE2.ais.columbia.edu> <4D0891D1.9090809@tkk.fi>
To: Jukka Manner <jukka.manner@tkk.fi>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: nsis@ietf.org
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
X-BeenThere: nsis@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Next Steps in Signaling <nsis.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsis>, <mailto:nsis-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/nsis>
List-Post: <mailto:nsis@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:nsis-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsis>, <mailto:nsis-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 18:06:45 -0000

Agreed. I think an RFC 1988-style IPR declaration is a good outcome.

Thanks Calvin.

On Dec 15, 2010, at 2:00 AM, Jukka Manner wrote:

> Hi Calvin,
> 
> Thanks for working strongly to resolve this. Your proposal sounds good to me.
> 
> Jukka
> 
> On 12/14/2010 12:36 AM, Calvin Chu wrote:
>> 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
> 
> -- 
> Jukka MJ Manner, Professor, PhD.  Phone:  +358+(0)9+470 22481
> Aalto University                  Mobile: +358+(0)50+5112973
> Department of Communications      Fax:    +358+(0)9+470 22474
> and Networking (Comnet)           Office: G320a (Otakaari 5A)
> P.O. Box 13000, FIN-00076 Aalto   E-mail: jukka.manner@tkk.fi
> Finland                           WWW:    www.comnet.tkk.fi
> _______________________________________________
> nsis mailing list
> nsis@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsis