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

Bruce Davie <bdavie@cisco.com> Fri, 22 July 2011 13:18 UTC

Return-Path: <bdavie@cisco.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 9DAC221F86CA for <rsvp-dir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 Jul 2011 06:18:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.44
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.44 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.160, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 IPEb9Got3xgV for <rsvp-dir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 Jul 2011 06:18:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.86.73]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A316721F856D for <rsvp-dir@ietf.org>; Fri, 22 Jul 2011 06:18:51 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=bdavie@cisco.com; l=2768; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1311340731; x=1312550331; h=subject:mime-version:from:in-reply-to:date:cc: content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=YoSOqycvDRpJhIYKJLX12tfvEIwvtjbB5GmlmvbWoGk=; b=SazJG4nIEkq8vkCNktKYHHv/F9LoKWb+8yjsXQ6/qFJ/xvqeIlSuf90Z 8ZRSN7xMxoPn07CEOwFNm4KbXZ66tJ1PwrVFt8OHYk0pTWfmjLu1vHr6p yelDKTsITsicLLmrUyuyZRpHxqJdPmi5VClZsUUpROvvOTqBcPj/NpAbz Y=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av0EAPJ3KU6rRDoI/2dsb2JhbABNBqdJd4h8BJx0njKDPYIjXwSSboUHi3Q
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.67,247,1309737600"; d="scan'208";a="5480078"
Received: from mtv-core-3.cisco.com ([171.68.58.8]) by rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 22 Jul 2011 13:18:51 +0000
Received: from [10.32.241.72] ([10.32.241.72]) by mtv-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p6MDInTQ022323; Fri, 22 Jul 2011 13:18:50 GMT
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
From: Bruce Davie <bdavie@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <201107221302.p6MD2ThI014679@bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 09:18:48 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <005157DF-FA7E-4064-8FBE-2E2FBD31BE1A@cisco.com>
References: <94007F3F05A24CF0AAFA916B42F93E69@davidPC> <4E29304E.1020001@erg.abdn.ac.uk> <201107221302.p6MD2ThI014679@bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk>
To: Bob Briscoe <bob.briscoe@bt.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
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 13:18:56 -0000

Bob,
 Thanks for the thoughtful analysis. Since the IPR owner in this case is also my employer, I think I have to recuse myself from the discussion.

Bruce

On Jul 22, 2011, at 9:02 AM, Bob Briscoe wrote:

> 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 
> _______________________________________________
> rsvp-dir mailing list
> rsvp-dir@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rsvp-dir