Re: [Ospf-wireless-design] Design Team Problem Statement

["Acee Lindem" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Madhavi,

I don't want to debate IPR too much. However, I think it would be
good to get a statement for OSPF Wireless extensions similar to the 
one you reference posted on the IETF web site. 

Thanks,
Acee
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Madhavi W. Chandra" <[e-mail]>
To: "Thomas Heide Clausen" <[e-mail]>
Cc: <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2004 1:04 PM
Subject: Re: [Ospf-wireless-design] Design Team Problem Statement


> I've consulted with our legal team.  Cisco legal is willing to 
> add language to clarify our statement an in
> http://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/cisco-ipr-draft-fenton-identified-mail-00.txt
> 
> Basically, it means that we will not charge royalties except 
> for parties that try to charge us royalties.  For any further 
> inquiries, please contact Robert Barr ([e-mail]) from our
> legal team.
> 
> Having said that, I don't think Cisco's proposals should be 
> overlooked or considered IPR-encumbered.  And, they have shown
> good performance as presented by Tom.
> 
> Thanks,
> Madhavi
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, Sep 22, 2004 at 05:46:00PM +0200, Thomas Heide Clausen wrote:
>> Although I have not studied the IETF IPR RFC's and the IPR statement in 
>> question in detail (travelling, limited bandwidth...), I agree with Joe and 
>> Richard: if at all possible, I too prefer IPR-unencumbered designs. 
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> 
>> --thomas
>> 
>> ...... Original Message .......
>> On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 10:59:36 -0400 Joe Macker <[e-mail]> 
>> wrote:
>> >I vote for preferring a non-IPR encumbered design.
>> >I think we know how to do most of this from existing work that is 
>> >nonencumbered.
>> >
>> >-Joe
>> >
>> >Henderson, Thomas R wrote:
>> >
>> >>  
>> >>
>> >>>-----Original Message-----
>> >>>From: Richard [mailto:[e-mail]] 
>> >>>Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2004 7:16 AM
>> >>>To: Henderson, Thomas R
>> >>>Cc: [e-mail]
>> >>>Subject: Re: [Ospf-wireless-design] Design Team Problem Statement
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>Henderson, Thomas R wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>    
>> >>>
>> >>>>>> 7) Technology without IPR claims should be preferred over 
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>          
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>technology
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>        
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>>    with IPR claims (ala section 8 of RFC 3668).
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>          
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>I hope we consider performance of the technology, and not reject a
>> >>>>>design just because it has an IPR statement attached to it.  
>> >>>>>Especially,
>> >>>>>since many IPR claims are purely defensive...as is Cisco's.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>        
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>Would you agree to this rephrasing:  "The design team will use 
>> >>>>RFC 3668 guidance for dealing with IPR claims."?  
>> >>>>
>> >>>>RFC 3668 supersedes RFC 2026 Section 10, and my reading of it
>> >>>>suggests to me that it should not cause any trouble for someone 
>> >>>>with a purely defensive IPR claim.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>      
>> >>>>
>> >>>RFC 3668 does not contain the word "defensive".  How can we be sure a
>> >>>patent is "purely defensive"?  I think the key term is "royalty-free
>> >>>licensing". Section 8 states: "In general, IETF working groups prefer
>> >>>technologies with no known IPR claims or, for technologies with claims
>> >>>against them, an offer of royalty-free licensing." If Cisco writes an
>> >>>IPR statement that states anyone can use the protocol royalty-free if
>> >>>it is included in an IETF standard or a standards-track RFC, 
>> >>>that would
>> >>>be one way to be sure the IPR claim is purely defensive. SRI 
>> >>>wrote such
>> >>>an IPR statement for TBRPF.
>> >>>
>> >>>    
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>Section 6.5 of RFC 3668 states:
>> >>   Since IPR disclosures will be used by IETF working groups during
>> >>   their evaluation of alternative technical solutions, it is helpful if
>> >>   an IPR disclosure includes information about licensing of the IPR in
>> >>   case Implementing Technologies require a license.  Specifically, it
>> >>   is helpful to indicate whether, upon approval by the IESG for
>> >>   publication as RFCs of the relevant IETF specification(s), all
>> >>   persons will be able to obtain the right to implement, use,
>> >>   distribute and exercise other rights with respect to an Implementing
>> >>   Technology a) under a royalty-free and otherwise reasonable and non-
>> >>   discriminatory license, or b) under a license that contains
>> >>   reasonable and non-discriminatory terms and conditions, including a
>> >>   reasonable royalty or other payment, or c) without the need to obtain
>> >>   a license from the IPR holder.
>> >>
>> >>Cisco's IPR statement is at:
>> >>http://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/cisco-ipr-draft-chandra-ospf-manet-ext-01.txt
>> >>It is not clear which specific mechanisms in this draft are being claimed.
>> >>
>> >>Section 8 of RFC 3668 states:
>> >>   In general, IETF working groups prefer technologies with no known IPR
>> >>   claims or, for technologies with claims against them, an offer of
>> >>   royalty-free licensing.  But IETF working groups have the discretion
>> >>   to adopt technology with a commitment of fair and non-discriminatory
>> >>   terms, or even with no licensing commitment, if they feel that this
>> >>   technology is superior enough to alternatives with fewer IPR claims
>> >>   or free licensing to outweigh the potential cost of the licenses.
>> >>
>> >>So it seems to me that the Cisco claim does not fall under the 
>> >>"royalty-free" category, so the working group can decide whether to adopt 
>> >>it at the working group's discretion, as discussed in Section 8.
>> >>
>> >>Tom
>> >>
>> >>_______________________________________________
>> >>Ospf-wireless-design mailing list
>> >>[e-mail]
>> >>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf-wireless-design
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>  
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >_______________________________________________
>> >Ospf-wireless-design mailing list
>> >[e-mail]
>> >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf-wireless-design
>> >
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ospf-wireless-design mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf-wireless-design
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ospf-wireless-design mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf-wireless-design

_______________________________________________
Ospf-wireless-design mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf-wireless-design