Re: [sfc] IPR related to draft-ietf-sfc-problem-statement

SFCers, Thomas,

I think the line of reasoning proposed at the beginning of this thread is not only fallacious but also quite dangerous.

The first email on this thread from Med is basically saying/implying that an existing IPR disclosure for draft-ietf-sfc-problem-statement applies to a particular section of that document only (Section 3), and also that consequently that specific Section ought to be removed (regardless of licensing terms of that IPR disclosure). Both are, IMHO, non-sequitur.

I am not a lawyer and I do not play one on this list -- however, it *cannot* be inferred from the IPR disclosure that the IPR only applies to Section 3. Similarly, it cannot be concluded as a consequence that a Section of a document should be surgically removed. Both statements are misleading.

There are many reasons for which an IPR disclosure can apply to a Problem Statement document, to a Use Case document, to a Requirements document, and of course to an Architecture and Protocol documents. I think it is dangerous to correlate the IPR to a specific section, and even worst to a particular action concerning such section. You can see other examples searching at https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/

The IPR disclosure points to Patent No: 7200679, that subject matter *may* apply, and all of us should consider this and make an assessment on the WGLC. However, the oversimplification below is incorrect and harmful.

More importantly, there is really not full consensus (to my knowledge, ADs please clarify otherwise) regardless the transitive nature of IPR disclosures and their terms. The disclosure applies to draft-quinn-sfc-problem-statement-02, and there is no explicit disclosure for any version of draft-ietf-sfc-problem-statement. That ought to be clarified. See for example the discussion at http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipr-wg/current/msg06187.html

My 2¢,

Carlos.

On Apr 30, 2014, at 3:18 PM, Andrew G. Malis <agmalis@gmail.com<mailto:agmalis@gmail.com>> wrote:

I also agree with everyone else on this thread.

Cheers,
Andy

On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 1:06 PM, Linda Dunbar <linda.dunbar@huawei.com<mailto:linda.dunbar@huawei.com>> wrote:
+1.

Linda

From: sfc [mailto:sfc-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:sfc-bounces@ietf.org>] On Behalf Of Ron Parker
Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2014 11:19 AM
To: Liushucheng (Will)
Cc: Jiangyuanlong; BOUCADAIR Mohamed IMT/OLN; sfc@ietf.org<mailto:sfc@ietf.org>; christian.jacquenet@orange.com<mailto:christian.jacquenet@orange.com>

Subject: Re: [sfc] IPR related to draft-ietf-sfc-problem-statement

+1

  Ron

On Apr 25, 2014, at 9:21 PM, "Liushucheng (Will)" <liushucheng@huawei.com<mailto:liushucheng@huawei.com>> wrote:
+1.

According to what we have agreed on the charter about the PS,
 “This document will provide a summary of the
problem space to be addressed by the SFC working group including
example high-level use cases. Additionally, the working group will
normalize nomenclature and definitions for service function chaining.”
The part related to explicit architecture should be merged into the architecture document.

Regards,
Will (Shucheng LIU)

From: sfc [mailto:sfc-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Jiangyuanlong
Sent: Friday, April 25, 2014 7:35 PM
To: christian.jacquenet@orange.com<mailto:christian.jacquenet@orange.com>; BOUCADAIR Mohamed IMT/OLN; sfc@ietf.org<mailto:sfc@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [sfc] IPR related to draft-ietf-sfc-problem-statement

+1, Section 3 addresses the architectural elements, which should be considered in a separate architecture document.

From: sfc [mailto:sfc-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of christian.jacquenet@orange.com<mailto:christian.jacquenet@orange.com>
Sent: Friday, April 25, 2014 2:23 PM
To: BOUCADAIR Mohamed IMT/OLN; sfc@ietf.org<mailto:sfc@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [sfc] IPR related to draft-ietf-sfc-problem-statement

WG,

I’d like to second Med’s comment: an IPR disclosure is a bit incongruous for a document that is supposed to document a problem statement and only a problem statement. From this perspective, the current Section 3 is no less misplaced.

Cheers,

Christian.

De : sfc [mailto:sfc-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de mohamed.boucadair@orange.com<mailto:mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
Envoyé : jeudi 24 avril 2014 08:27
À : sfc@ietf.org<mailto:sfc@ietf.org>
Objet : [sfc] IPR related to draft-ietf-sfc-problem-statement

Dear all,

When checking the tracker, I found there is an IPR disclosure for the problem statement document:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?option=document_search&id=draft-ietf-sfc-problem-statement

I’m surprised to see such disclosure for a document that is supposed to describe only problems (except section 3).

I’m re-iterating my comment to remove section 3 from the PS draft as it seems this is the only part that is close to the solution part than the problem discussion.

Cheers,
Med

_______________________________________________
sfc mailing list
sfc@ietf.org<mailto:sfc@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sfc