Re: Re: [ssm] wg last call for draft-ietf-ssm-arch-03 complete

Hoerdt wrote:
> > I have read the patent (very fast), and as the title seems to be
> > impressive, the described technology is not really related to SSM in my
> > opinion.  One thing that we could do is to note the differences between
> > SSM and this patent.  What I have notivec after a first fast reading :...

And Marshall responded:
> 1.) I do not believe that the IETF ever rules on any patent claims, so
> these details are not relevant...

As I read draft-ietf-ipr-wg-guidelines-05.txt:

You're right that the IETF will not take a stand on whether or not any
particular IPR claim is valid or not, but it *is* within the scope of
a working group to make an assessment of the risk in going forward
with a standard.  As part of that assessment, it's ok to discuss the
validity of the claims.  While the outcome of that discussion will not
be working group consensus, it can provide information for us to use
when deciding whether to advance the document.

It's not required that we perform a detailed investigation of the
claims before making a decision, but it doesn't mean that any
discussion of them is irrelevant.

-Hugh

_______________________________________________
ssm mailing list
ssm@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ssm