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

["Nancy Cam-Winget (ncamwing)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Henk,
As you note, the shepherd writeup has to include discussion (and conclusion) of the IPR disclosure, NOT of the claims as we are not experts
to evaluate them or the validity of any patents.

The email thread is to ensure awareness of the group's understanding of the implications to the draft as well as other potential drafts that will relate to the architecture.  
Strong consensus on the WG has been made but I think on content vs IPR implications especially as the second one came in a bit late.....we can allocate more time during
Open mic if needed and of course, decision is confirmed over the email list as well.

Best, Nancy 

On 11/7/21, 2:04 AM, "RATS on behalf of Henk Birkholz" <[e-mail] on behalf of [e-mail]> wrote:

    Thank you Nancy,
    
    we are happy to just update the revision, if the tracker is not 
    configured to track expired documents.
    
    I think the topic of discussion you highlighted might need more time 
    than the currently requested 10 min. The Shepard's write-up reflects the 
    strong consensus in the WG to move this memo forward as a WG item in (9).
    
    But there are also the open items (7), (8), and (11).
    
    (11) seems just like legwork to me. (7) and (8) are related to the topic 
    you raised here. I'll be more than happy to progress and I am cautiously 
    optimistic that we are mostly on the same page here. Please let us 
    identify a complete list of open tasks, assign them in the session, and 
    just get them done.
    
    Viele Grüße,
    
    Henk
    
    On 06.11.21 03:57, Nancy Cam-Winget (ncamwing) wrote:
    > RATS participants,
    > 
    > There are 2 IPR statements related to 
    > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-rats-architecture 
    > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-rats-architecture>:
    > 
    > https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/4106/ 
    > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/4106/>
    > 
    > https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/5042/ 
    > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/5042/>
    > 
    > For IPR  IETF procedures see https://www.ietf.org/standards/ipr/ 
    > <https://www.ietf.org/standards/ipr/> and RFC 8179. As neither the chairs
    > 
    > nor anyone else in the IETF is considered competent to evaluate such 
    > claims or the validity of any patents,
    > 
    > we suggest avoiding bringing these up.  However, IPR statement 5042 has
    > 
    > “Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory License to All Implementers with 
    > Possible Royalty/Fee”
    > 
    > And IPR statement 4106 “offer FRAND royalty-bearing licenses for such 
    > activities”. These licensing
    > 
    > Terms may make progress on the draft problematic to some implementers, 
    > especially non-commercial ones.
    > 
    > So this message is to start a discussion on how the RATS working group 
    > would like to handle these disclosures.
    > 
    > The WG can decide to continue to move forward to publication but 
    > discussion is warranted.
    > 
    > Best,  Nancy
    > 
    > (on behalf of the RATs chairs)
    > 
    > 
    > _______________________________________________
    > RATS mailing list
    > [e-mail]
    > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rats
    > 
    
    _______________________________________________
    RATS mailing list
    [e-mail]
    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rats