Re: [Rats] IPR statements about draft-ietf-rats-architecture

[Henk Birkholz <[e-mail]>]

While the IPR situation if unfortunate, I am in strong support of moving 
forward.

Additionally, I'd like to point out Eric's summary and have to also 
strongly +1 the notion that there is more IPR risk in even more 
unwarranted delay of the architecture document than there is with 
proceeding methodically and quickly from now on:

> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rats/xihv0yHc9hyc7-32sP4J-NJs_HY


On 09.12.21 02:13, Daniel Migault wrote:
> I checked internally and we would like the document be moved forward.
> Yours,
> Daniel
> 
> On Wed, Dec 8, 2021 at 6:04 PM Guy Fedorkow 
> <gfedorkow=[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> 
>     Of course we’re uncomfortable about an unquantifiable IPR risk, but
>     I agree with Ira, we should move forward with the document as-is.____
> 
>        /guy____
> 
>     __ __
> 
>     __ __
> 
>     __ __
> 
>     Juniper Business Use Only____
> 
>     *From:* RATS <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>     *On Behalf Of * Ira McDonald
>     *Sent:* Wednesday, December 8, 2021 4:37 PM
>     *To:* Dave Thaler <dthaler=[e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>>; Ira McDonald
>     <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>     *Cc:* Michael Richardson <[e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>>; Kathleen Moriarty
>     <[e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>>; Hannes Tschofenig
>     <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>; Eric
>     Voit (evoit) <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>;
>     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     *Subject:* Re: [Rats] IPR statements about
>     draft-ietf-rats-architecture____
> 
>     __ __
> 
>     *[External Email. Be cautious of content]____*
> 
>     __ __
> 
>     Hi,____
> 
>     __ __
> 
>     I agree w/ Dave Thaler - publish this Informational RATS
>     Architecture as is.____
> 
>     __ __
> 
>     There has already been far too long a delay.____
> 
>     __ __
> 
>     Cheers,____
> 
>     - Ira____
> 
>     __ __
> 
>     /Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)/____
> 
>     /Chair - SAE Trust Anchors and Authentication TF/____
> 
>     /Co-Chair - TCG Trusted Mobility Solutions WG/____
> 
>     /Co-Chair - TCG Metadata Access Protocol SG/____
> 
>     /Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WG
>     Secretary - IEEE-ISTO Printer Working Group
>     Co-Chair - IEEE-ISTO PWG Internet Printing Protocol WG
>     IETF Designated Expert - IPP & Printer MIB
>     Blue Roof Music / High North Inc
>     http://sites.google.com/site/blueroofmusic
>     <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/sites.google.com/site/blueroofmusic__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!R85wC3uzBNtS9JVpsdUG6yhASb1zHxy0fBSiyxn4lyCbvEu12tWYPkxHS6_2-PeTx3I$>
>     http://sites.google.com/site/highnorthinc
>     <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/sites.google.com/site/highnorthinc__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!R85wC3uzBNtS9JVpsdUG6yhASb1zHxy0fBSiyxn4lyCbvEu12tWYPkxHS6_2f8uYH3g$>
>     mailto: [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     (permanent) PO Box 221  Grand Marais, MI 49839  906-494-2434/____
> 
>     __ __
> 
>     __ __
> 
>     On Wed, Dec 8, 2021 at 1:59 PM Dave Thaler
>     <dthaler=[e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:____
> 
>         My personal opinion is that publication should proceed, especially
>         since the architecture document is just Informational.
> 
>         Dave
> 
>         -----Original Message-----
>         From: RATS <[e-mail]
>         <mailto:[e-mail]>> On Behalf Of Michael Richardson
>         Sent: Saturday, November 20, 2021 7:46 AM
>         To: Kathleen Moriarty <[e-mail]
>         <mailto:[e-mail]>>; Eric Voit (evoit)
>         <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>; Hannes Tschofenig
>         <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>;
>         [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>         Subject: Re: [Rats] IPR statements about
>         draft-ietf-rats-architecture
> 
> 
>         Kathleen Moriarty <[e-mail]
>         <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>              > I wouldn’t go by that date as I did a call for IPR and
>         then had to
>              > wait. That might have been the trigger, not sure.
> 
>              > Hannes, can your lawyers look at what’s been provided so far?
> 
>         The IPR disclosures on the IETF web site are almost always
>         completely useless.  This one included in my opinion.
> 
>         Worse, a typo in the markup of the previous version means that
>         the 3.1 heading actually didn't render.  So it's not clear what
>         the IPR claim refers to.
> 
>         At best the IPR declaration tells us what patent application to
>         look at, and we don't even know if the PTO will even accept all
>         the claims.
> 
>         --
>         Michael Richardson <[e-mail]
>         <mailto:[e-mail]>>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
>                     Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
> 
> 
> 
> 
>         _______________________________________________
>         RATS mailing list
>         [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>         https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rats
>         <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rats__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!R85wC3uzBNtS9JVpsdUG6yhASb1zHxy0fBSiyxn4lyCbvEu12tWYPkxHS6_2VurWlfQ$>____
> 
>     _______________________________________________
>     RATS mailing list
>     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rats
>     <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rats>
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Daniel Migault
> Ericsson
> 
> _______________________________________________
> RATS mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rats
>