[Tools-discuss] [Inquiry #45800] http://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/MICROSOFT-499.txt
" via RT" <ietf-ipr@ietf.org> Fri, 25 March 2005 04:49 UTC
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA19674; Thu, 24 Mar 2005 23:49:22 -0500 (EST)
Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DEgqz-0000g0-M8; Thu, 24 Mar 2005 23:55:25 -0500
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DEgjd-0000hk-Gv; Thu, 24 Mar 2005 23:47:49 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DEbHv-00056e-TI for tools-discuss@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 24 Mar 2005 17:58:52 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA16144; Thu, 24 Mar 2005 17:58:49 -0500 (EST)
Received: from [132.151.6.18] (helo=ticket.ietf.org) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DEbNh-0007Dd-FT; Thu, 24 Mar 2005 18:04:49 -0500
Received: from apache by ticket.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.33) id 1DEbbY-0004Cn-Fd; Thu, 24 Mar 2005 18:19:08 -0500
From: via RT <ietf-ipr@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <rt-45800@Inquiry>
Message-ID: <rt-3.2.1-45800-177845-6.8.31309881115089@foretec.com>
Precedence: bulk
X-RT-Loop-Prevention: Inquiry
RT-Ticket: Inquiry #45800
Managed-by: RT 3.2.1 (http://www.bestpractical.com/rt/)
RT-Originator: bfuller@foretec.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
X-RT-Original-Encoding: utf-8
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 18:19:08 -0500
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 25620135586de10c627e3628c432b04a
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 23:47:37 -0500
Cc: moore@cs.utk.edu, ietf-ipr@ietf.org, tools-discuss@ietf.org
Subject: [Tools-discuss] [Inquiry #45800] http://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/MICROSOFT-499.txt
X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Reply-To: ietf-ipr@ietf.org
List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion <tools-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss>, <mailto:tools-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/tools-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:tools-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tools-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss>, <mailto:tools-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: tools-discuss-bounces@ietf.org
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: cd26b070c2577ac175cd3a6d878c6248
Dear Keith: The IPR disclosure that you are referring to, "Microsoft's Patent Statment pertaining to draft-ietf-dhc-ipv4-autoconfig and draft-cheshire-ipv4-linklocal," ID #164, was submitted by Microsoft Corporation on August 3, 2000. Your inquiry raises three issues that are actually broader than this particular IPR disclosure. I will try to address each one independently. Issue #1: The document draft-cheshire-ipv4-linklocal-00.txt, "Dynamic Configuration of IPv4 link-local addresses," was an independent submission that expired. The document draft-ietf-zeroconf-ipv4-linklocal-17.txt,"Dynamic Configuration of IPv4 Link-Local Addresses," is a working group submission that has just been published as an RFC. >From the titles of the two documents, it would appear that they are related. However, the Secretariat does not make these decisions. When an I-D is published as an RFC, or when one RFC "obsoletes" another RFC, then the pairs of documents are automatically marked as related in our systems. However, if one I-D replaces another I-D (e.g., when an individual submission is adopted by a working group, and its filename is changed from "draft-author" to "draft-ietf-wg"), then the only way that the Secretariat knows that the documents are related is if someone tells us. In the case of these two documents, we were not given that information, and the documents are not marked as related in our systems. If they were marked as related in our system, then the IPR disclosure would be returned when a search is performed for IPR related to either one. Issue #2: The Secretariat does not update an IPR disclosure unless the submitter of the original IPR disclosure requests that we do so. For example, we do not make judgements about the documents to which Microsoft's patent No. 6,101,499 applies. If we know that two documents are related, then our system will automatically link IPR disclosures submitted for both documents (see Issue #1 above). Issue #3: If you believe that Microsoft has IPR in draft-cheshire-ipv4-linklocal-00.txt due to patent No. 6,101,499, then you may take action to link the original IPR disclosure to that document in our system. All you need do is submit a "third-party" IPR disclosure. Go to the "IETF IPR Disclosure Page," https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/ipr_disclosure.cgi, click on the link that says: "Notify the IETF of IPR other than your own," and complete the template. Please let us know if you have any additional questions or require assistance in filing a "third-party" IPR disclosure. Regards, Barbara ---------------------------------------------- > [moore@cs.utk.edu - Thu Mar 24 14:05:06 2005]: > > The IPR disclosure in http://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/MICROSOFT-499.txt > appears to pertain to draft-ietf-zeroconf-ipv4-linklocal-17 , > a product of the (former?) IETF zeroconf working group and a candidate > for proposed standard status. > > I'm sending this because U.S. Patent No. 6,101,499 , referred to in > the disclosure, obviously relates to the above mentioned draft but > does not show up under IPR related to the activity of the zeroconf > working group or of that draft. It was not obvious as to how to > correct this using the web-based IPR submission form. > > There may also be a need for IETF document tracking tools to keep > track of associated IPR so that IPR disclosures can continue to be > associated with documents across changes in document filenames, > or when document content is split across multiple documents. > > Keith > > _______________________________________________ Tools-discuss mailing list Tools-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss