Re: [sfc] IPR check for draft-quinn-sfc-problem-statement

[Chris Frederick <[e-mail]>]

Sorry, that's still not quite accurate; it's not just 'what gets chained', there's an element of 'how' as well...I felt it was worth flagging because the IPR covers an ability to steer (including into service function chains) based on protocol/application, content, and so on (i.e. information not available on the first packet), yet the technique enables redirection from the first packet.
Again, apologies for using the wrong forum; I'll check the link you provided. Thx,
/c

From: sfc [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Chris Frederick
Sent: Monday, January 27, 2014 9:28 AM
To: Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)
Cc: Thomas Narten; [e-mail]; Jim Guichard (jguichar); Michael Smith (michsmit); Brad McConnell; Paul Quinn (paulq)
Subject: Re: [sfc] IPR check for draft-quinn-sfc-problem-statement

Hi Carlos,
I was trying to draw a distinction between IPR related to the 'process of actual chaining' (which it's not) and IPR related to the granular selection of 'what gets chained' (which it is).
Thx for the pointer to the proper form, I'm new here + still  getting my bearings. Best,
/c

From: Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2014 10:00 AM
To: Chris Frederick
Cc: Michael Smith (michsmit); Paul Quinn (paulq); Brad McConnell; Thomas Narten; Jim Guichard (jguichar); [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [sfc] IPR check for draft-quinn-sfc-problem-statement

Chris,

Just to be clear -- when you say "This is not related to SFC specifically", are you acknowledging that you know of no IPR with subject matter related to draft-quinn-sfc-problem-statement-02.txt?

Also, if there is any IPR to be disclosed, the actual disclosure should be done at http://www.ietf.org/ipr/file-disclosure.html and not on the WG mailing list.

Thanks,

-- Carlos.

On Jan 22, 2014, at 11:07 AM, Chris Frederick <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:

Hello,
Sandvine has intellectual property related to the granular steering of traffic flows, specifically where the session has been established. This technique enables steering on the basis of application, content, etc, vs. just the port that would be seen in the initial SYN packet.
This is outlined here: http://www.google.com/patents/WO2004086714A1?cl=en
This is not related to SFC specifically but I bring it to your attention as this technique can be used to select flows that would then be redirected through a service function chain or path; Sandvine uses this mechanism in our own SFC implementation for example. Best regards,

Chris Frederick
Director, Technology Partnerships
[e-mail]

<mailto:[e-mail]>
From: sfc [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Michael Smith (michsmit)
Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2014 8:10 PM
To: Paul Quinn (paulq); Brad McConnell
Cc: Thomas Narten; Jim Guichard (jguichar); [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [sfc] IPR check for draft-quinn-sfc-problem-statement

I'm not aware of any either.
Michael

From: "Paul Quinn (paulq)" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Date: Tuesday, January 21, 2014 5:00 PM
To: Brad McConnell <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: Thomas Narten <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, "Jim Guichard (jguichar)" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: Re: [sfc] IPR check for draft-quinn-sfc-problem-statement

Me neither.

Paul


On Jan 21, 2014, at 6:11 PM, Brad McConnell <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:


I'm not aware of any.

Thank you,

Brad McConnell
________________________________
From: sfc [[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>] on behalf of Rajeev Manur [[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>]
Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2014 5:08 PM
To: Jim Guichard (jguichar)
Cc: Thomas Narten; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [sfc] IPR check for draft-quinn-sfc-problem-statement

+1

Thanks!
--Rajeev

From: sfc [mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>] On Behalf Of Surendra Kumar (smkumar)
Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2014 2:54 PM
To: Jim Guichard (jguichar)
Cc: Thomas Narten; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [sfc] IPR check for draft-quinn-sfc-problem-statement

+1

Surendra.

From: "Ken Gray (kegray)" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Date: Tuesday, January 21, 2014 12:18 PM
To: Thomas Nadeau <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, "Jim Guichard (jguichar)" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: Thomas Narten <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: Re: [sfc] IPR check for draft-quinn-sfc-problem-statement

Ditto

From: Thomas Nadeau <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Date: Tuesday, January 21, 2014 2:54 PM
To: "Jim Guichard (jguichar)" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: Thomas Narten <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: Re: [sfc] IPR check for draft-quinn-sfc-problem-statement


None from my end.

On Jan 21, 2014:2:05 PM, at 2:05 PM, Jim Guichard (jguichar) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:

This email serves as a poll for knowledge of any IPR that applies to draft [1], to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).

If you are listed as a document author or contributor please respond to this email whether or not you are aware of any relevant IPR. The draft will not be adopted until a response has been received from each author and major contributor.

If you are on the SFC WG mailing list but are not listed as an author or contributor, then please explicitly respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in conformance with IETF rules.

Thank you,

Jim & Thomas
SFC chairs

[1] http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-quinn-sfc-problem-statement-02.txt
_______________________________________________
sfc mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sfc

_______________________________________________
sfc mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sfc

_______________________________________________
sfc mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sfc