Re: [rsvp-dir] Fwd: AD followup: draft-ietf-tsvwg-rsvp-security-groupkeying - IPR discussion

Bob Briscoe <bob.briscoe@bt.com> Fri, 22 July 2011 13:02 UTC

Return-Path: <bob.briscoe@bt.com>
X-Original-To: rsvp-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rsvp-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5A4021F8515 for <rsvp-dir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 Jul 2011 06:02:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.486
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.486 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.113, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NwOFSBEje6fX for <rsvp-dir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 Jul 2011 06:02:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp3.smtp.bt.com (smtp3.smtp.bt.com [217.32.164.138]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0F6821F85CA for <rsvp-dir@ietf.org>; Fri, 22 Jul 2011 06:02:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from i2kc08-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net ([193.113.197.71]) by smtp3.smtp.bt.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Fri, 22 Jul 2011 14:02:31 +0100
Received: from cbibipnt08.iuser.iroot.adidom.com ([147.149.100.81]) by i2kc08-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Fri, 22 Jul 2011 14:02:30 +0100
Received: From bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk ([132.146.168.158]) by cbibipnt08.iuser.iroot.adidom.com (WebShield SMTP v4.5 MR1a P0803.399); id 1311339750230; Fri, 22 Jul 2011 14:02:30 +0100
Received: from MUT.jungle.bt.co.uk ([10.215.131.97]) by bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk (8.13.5/8.12.8) with ESMTP id p6MD2ThI014679; Fri, 22 Jul 2011 14:02:29 +0100
Message-Id: <201107221302.p6MD2ThI014679@bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 14:02:28 +0100
To: <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
From: Bob Briscoe <bob.briscoe@bt.com>
In-Reply-To: <4E29304E.1020001@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
References: <94007F3F05A24CF0AAFA916B42F93E69@davidPC> <4E29304E.1020001@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.56 on 132.146.168.158
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Jul 2011 13:02:30.0891 (UTC) FILETIME=[9D8FABB0:01CC486F]
Cc: rsvp-dir@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rsvp-dir] Fwd: AD followup: draft-ietf-tsvwg-rsvp-security-groupkeying - IPR discussion
X-BeenThere: rsvp-dir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: RSVP directorate <rsvp-dir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rsvp-dir>, <mailto:rsvp-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rsvp-dir>
List-Post: <mailto:rsvp-dir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rsvp-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rsvp-dir>, <mailto:rsvp-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 13:02:33 -0000

Gorry,

I agree IPR on this was never discussed in tsvwg to my knowledge. The 
IPR declaration doesn't point to the specific IPR (which it doesn't 
have to), so we can only guess which of the approach(es) in the doc 
are encumbered.

I reviewed this one a couple of times. As you say it's informational; 
it is primarily a comparative guide. Given this implies there are no 
specific issues about normative statements, the only IPR issue would 
be if the guidance is *unjustifiably* tilted towards a particular 
approach (assuming that might be the patented approached).

When I reviewed it, I wasn't aware there was IPR on this one, so my 
"unjustified bias" detector wasn't turned up to max sensitivity. But 
in retrospect I'm very happy that all the guidance is technically 
sound. So I can't see there's any danger here.


Bob

At 09:09 22/07/2011, Gorry Fairhurst wrote:

>RSVP directorate,
>
>We can't find any discussion of this in TSVWG, so we'll be looking 
>for comments on how this IPR should be considered for an INFO doc from the WG.
>
>Best wishes,
>
>Gorry
>
>-------- Original Message --------
>Subject: AD followup: draft-ietf-tsvwg-rsvp-security-groupkeying
>Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 02:40:48 -0400
>From: David Harrington <ietfdbh@comcast.net>;
>To: <tsvwg-chairs@tools.ietf.org>;
>CC: <tsv-ads@tools.ietf.org>;
>
>Hi,
>
>Has the WG explicitly discussed acceptability of the IPR terms related
>to this document? The RAND terms apply for compliance to the standard,
>but this is not being submitted as a standards-track document. The 
>terms in the IPR declaration do not seem to provide non-assert 
>status for implementing an Informational document.
>
>Has the WG discussed this?
>
>If so, can you provide a link to the relevant thread?
>
>David Harrington
>Director, IETF Transport Area
>ietfdbh@comcast.net (preferred for ietf)
>dbharrington@huaweisymantec.com
>+1 603 828 1401 (cell)
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>rsvp-dir mailing list
>rsvp-dir@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rsvp-dir

________________________________________________________________
Bob Briscoe,                                BT Innovate & Design