Re: IPR Disclosure: Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (publ)'s Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-rtgwg-mrt-frr-architecture-01

Curtis,

First, this is EXACTLY the same IPR claim that was attached to the
original draft before it became a WG draft.  While I, personally, am
not thrilled with the terms, the WG made a decision to accept the
draft at the time regardless of those terms.

Second, the MRT solution has changed somewhat from the original draft
- including the ability to pre-select the alternate.

Third, MRT is NOT a solution that has to be deployed across the entire
network to be useful.  Nor does it change normal forwarding and
routing.  For the LDP case, it simply provides additional forwarding
paths using existing MPLS mechanisms.  Naturally, it computes those
forwarding paths with a algorithm other than basic SPF to obtain the
desired results.

I would certainly welcome your thoughtful comments on the drafts and
would encourage you to read the more recent version.

Alia  (wg-chair hat off)

On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 11:52 AM, Curtis Villamizar <curtis@occnc.com> wrote:
>
> In message <20120618155048.18575.97874.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
> IETF Secretariat writes:
>
>>
>> Dear Gabor Sandor Envedi, Alia Atlas, Robert Kebler, Andras Csaszar,
>> Russ White, Mike Shand, Maciek Konstantynowicz:
>>
>>  An IPR disclosure that pertains to your Internet-Draft entitled "An
>> Architecture for IP/LDP Fast-Reroute Using Maximally Redundant Trees"
>> (draft- ietf-rtgwg-mrt-frr-architecture) was submitted to the IETF
>> Secretariat on 2012-06-18 and has been posted on the "IETF Page of
>> Intellectual Property Rights Disclosures"
>> (https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1801/). The title of the IPR
>> disclosure is "Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (publ)'s Statement
>> about IPR related to draft-ietf-rtgwg-mrt-frr-architecture-01."");
>>
>> The IETF Secretariat
>
>
> Prior reasons to be hesitant about this work included the rather
> substantial change to routing and forwarding, and the need to deploy
> network wide (no accommodation for legacy equipment).  Regardless, it
> became a WG item.
>
> Now that there is an IPR disclosure with no statement at all regarding
> licensing terms, it might be time to reconsider whether the WG should
> go forward with this work.
>
> IMHO- If the IPR disclosure is not updated with a reasonable and
> non-discriminatory, preferably royalty-free, licensing statement, the
> MRT work should be abandoned by RTGWG.
>
> Curtis
> _______________________________________________
> rtgwg mailing list
> rtgwg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg