Re: [paws] Please review IPR disclosure

Ray Bellis <> Thu, 18 September 2014 07:16 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A47B1A700B for <>; Thu, 18 Sep 2014 00:16:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.952
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.952 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_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.652] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lhNWIFKIo4mi for <>; Thu, 18 Sep 2014 00:16:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8471D1A6F9E for <>; Thu, 18 Sep 2014 00:16:15 -0700 (PDT)
DomainKey-Signature:;; c=nofws; q=dns; h=X-IronPort-AV:X-IPAS-Result:Received:Received:From:To:CC: Subject:Thread-Topic:Thread-Index:Importance:X-Priority: Date:Message-ID:References:In-Reply-To:Accept-Language: Content-Language:X-MS-Has-Attach:X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip:Content-Type:Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; b=mbvN/YCcEaB+E/ftMukczgdGW63Zke6Z90/ghC/V1KsXRNOqxkUeC1So CoTNzMSfghV6loFxxVev0uTea0+VmfS5fYPNu+51Of3FlZbjO0mk/6JOC e+Dk+r3z0jIdDb5fG8OC0jLtkCxsFNmuOBKReYdwsbRSmO6QgIr/NT4OZ cQc7+i/na79XycTHFce/AiG4Ilneu5yFiQzS1FCcS8h3uzQugpSC0iq05 KWdxZHJZ2k/qhcuYR+04IJTRM2WDM;
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;;; q=dns/txt; s=main2.dkim.nominet.selector; t=1411024576; x=1442560576; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=s+wqk/0HcX7iI25hanCuQqTgsqmIqxhmCO8Jz/ID1vs=; b=pYrqWaLdSqVb7cVad8HYL8Q7LENPWZyueF69JrbT1nNfV/rjRiTkcyev Y561GmP2DXCfKzlRYd2D3RxdFe4Fo1DqZe8GYKN0kQTnPhogJIAiDOshI g2H4vnD8tMzjxoThdPVPJGewpt9eFdbMmmqeIiGd4aSo/mql0iJE5/Kl3 WnJAm/BtnIMqIUIfzp4cFNCUHO83JmME/yuEwPJs3HTgY8s45oNMFuAX0 lnwPuRQL3rPvE8K57hwB1NgROFRew;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.04,545,1406588400"; d="scan'208";a="12408388"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 18 Sep 2014 08:16:14 +0100
Received: from ([fe80::1593:1394:a91f:8f5f]) by ([fe80::7577:eaca:5241:25d4%16]) with mapi id 14.03.0181.006; Thu, 18 Sep 2014 08:16:13 +0100
From: Ray Bellis <>
To: Pete Resnick <>
Thread-Topic: [paws] Please review IPR disclosure
Thread-Index: AQHPvU/d1j5UJH/q2EGfEzSD8y5lTZwGlXYA
Importance: high
X-Priority: 1
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2014 07:16:12 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-ID: <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [paws] Please review IPR disclosure
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Protocol to Access White Space database \(PAWS\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2014 07:16:19 -0000

On 21 Aug 2014, at 15:54, Pete Resnick <> wrote:

> PAWS participants:
> Somehow an IPR disclosure was filed on the PAWS protocol document for which we did not see an announcement:
> As far as I can tell from the title (given that the referenced IP is an as-yet-unpublished patent), this applies to the database discovery portion of the protocol. Since we have removed much of that discussion, we expect mostly pre-configuration, and we have yet to (and may never) complete the actual database discovery work, I think this may have no effect on folks implementing the protocol. But I do need to confirm that the WG is aware of this and still thinks it's OK to move forward with the protocol document.
> If there are any objections to moving forward, I need to hear that immediately.
> However, I would like to hear an overt, "Yes, understood, and it's fine to move forward" from some folks who might be implementing the protocol.

I’m unable to find the text of the Nokia application, so it’s difficult to assess.

I note that they’ve quoted an application date of 29 April 2013, I’d be amazed if there isn’t some prior work relating to database discovery (e.g. the OFCOM spec, or ETSI EN 301 598) although that does depend on exactly what mechanism it is they’re claiming.

Given the WG's de-emphasis on DB discovery I see no reason to change course based on this.