Re: IPR discussion: draft-ietf-tsvwg-rsvp-security-groupkeying

["t.petch" <[e-mail]>]

---- Original Message -----
From: "Gorry Fairhurst" <[e-mail]>
To: "tsvwg WG" <[e-mail]>
Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2011 11:45 AM
>
> The draft above is now in Last Call, and there needs to now be a
> discussion within TSVWG relating to the acceptability of the IPR terms
> for this document.
>
> There is an IPR statement filed:
> ID # 988 "Cisco's Statement about IPR claimed in
> draft-ietf-tsvwg-rsvp-security-groupkeying-01.txt"
>
> This seems to provide RAND terms for compliance to a standard, but this
> I-D is not being submitted as a standards-track document. The terms in
> the IPR declaration do not seem to provide non-assert status for
> implementing an Informational document. Please can the WG discuss this?

I think that you are reading too much into the IPR claim, which is probably
written by a lawyer whose use of terms means what (s)he wants them to mean and
has no relationship to their usage by other people such as the IETF.

I suggest that the editors of this I-D contact the e-mail addresses in the IPR
claim and ask for clarification as the meaning of the word 'standard', whether
the term is being using in the IETF sense, and so excluding BCP, Experimental
etc of whether it is being used in another sense and so, for example,
encompassing any document that the IETF produces as part of the RFC series.

Tom Petch
>
> * Specifically, do other options exist that would not introduce this IPR
> dependence?
>
> * Have these options been explored?
>
> * What does the WG recommend? (We can discuss this further in the WG
> meeting next week).
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Gorry Fairhurst
>
> TSVWG Chair