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

["Adrian Farrel" <[e-mail]>]

Thanks Gorry,

For those too tired to follow the links, the disclosure is at
http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/988/

Personally (no hats being worn - consequent risk of sunstroke) I find the text
of the disclosure a little disappointing. As you point out, the reference to
"inclusion in a standard" is unclear both for this Informational document, and
for any Standards Track document. What if I implement a PS or DS?

I also find the lack of references for the "one or more pending unpublished
patent applications" unfortunate. The vagueness is such that it might even be
the case that it some feature (such as IPSec) that is covered rather than group
keying.

This leads me to say that I am unable to assess whether it would be harmful to
proceed with this document in the light of the disclosure. But I would observe
that this is an informational document that does not make any changes to the
base protocols. That is, the presence of this document will not require
implementations to conform to it. Thus, it is probably safe to proceed with its
publication.

Adrian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
> Gorry Fairhurst
> Sent: 23 July 2011 10:45
> To: tsvwg WG
> Subject: IPR discussion: draft-ietf-tsvwg-rsvp-security-groupkeying
> 
> 
> 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?
> 
> * 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