Re: [OPSAWG] regarding draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-community: IPR call
"Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com> Tue, 17 April 2018 12:41 UTC
Return-Path: <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B34F12EB2A for <opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Apr 2018 05:41:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=joelhalpern.com
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 AJKpGgQKyqKH for <opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Apr 2018 05:41:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from maila2.tigertech.net (maila2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.152]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9D96B12EB26 for <opsawg@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Apr 2018 05:41:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF31F261096; Tue, 17 Apr 2018 05:41:17 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=joelhalpern.com; s=2.tigertech; t=1523968877; bh=y7igdbkPcOYX2QT1BAUnbaAcUpNQtOUJ630JIeSgOas=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=ICHMXk821gglDdD+q7hxTafiqQ8udhKjxOrpgLZEhdiAx0Fz3YZm6TFQzCTURcJPH 4LCN3ZTGJl0Wy3QV6r8GDa63EwW3uQBYvyREBGpP6Pvu2rWzQAaJCs0DuU29UrQbbi RIwrWXCt//yWi47XaGDKyIkA3vOXqT6uDeTG8jYM=
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at maila2.tigertech.net
Received: from Joels-MacBook-Pro.local (unknown [50.225.209.67]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0BAE4241299; Tue, 17 Apr 2018 05:41:16 -0700 (PDT)
To: Tianran Zhou <zhoutianran@huawei.com>, "opsawg@ietf.org" <opsawg@ietf.org>
References: <6fc59353-a600-ebf8-d525-c4a026cb82bf@joelhalpern.com> <BBA82579FD347748BEADC4C445EA0F21A6D63A00@NKGEML515-MBX.china.huawei.com>
From: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
Message-ID: <944d2973-6d1a-c6f7-aec7-79fd60eb4f6e@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2018 08:41:16 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <BBA82579FD347748BEADC4C445EA0F21A6D63A00@NKGEML515-MBX.china.huawei.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/GEH3L-wdoIdz4stwl2ga6EKEuL8>
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] regarding draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-community: IPR call
X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List <opsawg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/opsawg>, <mailto:opsawg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/opsawg/>
List-Post: <mailto:opsawg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:opsawg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg>, <mailto:opsawg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2018 12:41:22 -0000
As far as I can tell, the formal IPR disclosure with IPR terms was not filed until several days after that request. Thus, the WG can not have considered it in the light of the actual terms. When I asked one WG participant, he was quite surprised by the terms. Given the difficulty both Huawei and Ericsson have gotten from IETF participants over similar terms, I do not think this can be ignored. Yours, Joel On 4/17/18 1:12 AM, Tianran Zhou wrote: > Hi Joel, > > Thanks for reminding this important information. > Yes, we did the IPR poll when it became a WG draft. The IPR was disclosed then. Please see > https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/opsawg/current/msg04792.html > We did not received any objection based on this. > > Thanks, > Tianran >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Joel M. Halpern [mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com] >> Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2018 8:25 AM >> To: opsawg-chairs@ietf.org >> Subject: regarding draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-community: IPR call >> >> Is the working group aware of the IPR disclosure China Mobile made against >> this document? Specifically, that the IPR disclosure says that a license >> may be required? >> >> Normally, I would not even comment on that, and as you can see, I am not >> commenting on the list about it. >> >> But I note that this is a case where there is a clear workaround (just don't >> do this). So I would expect that the shepherd report, whenever that is >> produced, will need to discuss the IPR disclosure. >> >> Yours, >> Joel
- Re: [OPSAWG] regarding draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-bg… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [OPSAWG] regarding draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-bg… Warren Kumari
- Re: [OPSAWG] regarding draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-bg… Tianran Zhou