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

["Madhavi W. Chandra" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Acee,

I will let Cisco legal know.   I also hope this puts the IPR
debate to rest on the mailing list.  However, as always, any
IPR related issues can be directed to Robert Barr ([e-mail]).

Thanks!
-Madhavi

On Wed, Sep 22, 2004 at 04:13:31PM -0400, Acee Lindem wrote:
> 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