Re: [PWE3] IPR issue with draft-ietf-pwe3-p2mp-pw-requirements-06

["Andrew G. Malis" <[e-mail]>]

Adrian,

Thanks!

WG and draft authors,

Adrian asked (and I repeat for myself as well):

> What do the authors and WG think? Would removal of an option for the creation of
> a return path diminish the document?

Any other opinions?

Thanks,
Andy

On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 5:46 AM, Adrian Farrel <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Hi Andy,
>
> Let me speak as an individual contributor.
>
> I think this may have got buried under the pile of Christmas cards.
>
> Looking at the IPR terms and the disclosure dates, I can't say that I am
> personally happy to have this I-D go ahead covered by this disclosure.
>
> While I accept that this document is a requirements spec and so it may be hard
> to conceive how the IPR applies (there being nothing in a requirements spec that
> I can see would be implemented) i think that the requirements necessarily drive
> the solutions and thus a solution is likely to be caught by this IPR.
>
> However, it seems to my reading of the reported patent that this IPR covers MP2P
> PWs.
> Looking at the I-D, the mention of MP2P is very limited (at the bottom of
> section 3.1).
>
> My suggestion, therefore, is to remove the text in section 3.1 that may be
> encumbered so that this I-D can move ahead without any disclosed IPR. i think
> that would be a relatively minor change (although it is text that has been in
> the I-D for a long time).
>
> What do the authors and WG think? Would removal of an option for the creation of
> a return path diminish the document?
>
> Thanks,
> Adrian
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: pwe3 [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Andrew G. Malis
>> Sent: 23 December 2013 20:03
>> To: [e-mail]
>> Cc: [e-mail]
>> Subject: [PWE3] IPR issue with draft-ietf-pwe3-p2mp-pw-requirements-06
>>
>> I would like to make the WG aware of a potential IPR issue with
>> draft-ietf-pwe3-p2mp-pw-requirements-06, which I've been getting ready
>> for submission to the IESG. On Nov. 13, 2013, ORANGE filed an IPR
>> disclosure, https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2249/ . The IPR concerns
>> multipoint to point PWs, which are are one of two optional return
>> paths discussed in draft-ietf-pwe3-p2mp-pw-requirements-06.
>> Point-to-point PWs are the other optional return path discussed in the
>> draft.
>>
>> Given that this IPR was disclosed late in the process, before
>> submitting this draft to the IESG, I would like to get a sense of the
>> WG as to whether it is OK to submit the draft as is, or if the WG
>> would prefer that the optional MP2P return path be removed from the
>> draft.
>>
>> As this is over the holidays, and many people are on vacation, I won't
>> take any action on the draft until at least the second week of
>> January.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Andy