Re: [v6ops] IPR Disclosure Apple Inc.'s Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc6555bis

[Erik Kline <[e-mail]>]

>> And no, it isn't an IETF issue. It's the WG's job to decide whether
>> an IPR disclosure is a problem: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8179#section-7
>>
>
> And, just so the WG has some history / background (as far as I can remember it):
>
> Around WGLC the authors stated that they did not know of any IPR which
> needed to be disclosed, but then (during IETF LC) became aware of the
> fact that there *might* be. They needed some time to investigate /
> talk to their legal people, and let the chairs know, who let me know.
>
> I replied to the IETF LC announcement to let the IETF and WG know that
> there might be an IPR disclosure forthcoming:
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/dmfCf7eLvtxSF30osuvmjNzGW38
> (IETF list), https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/bEF7VI-COO7FfYtxBjTALuDtgu0
> (v6ops list).
> (we also updated the shepherd writeup)
>
> Over the next ~19 days the authors worked with their legal folk, and
> the IPR disclosure was posted on Oct 5th.

Thanks for the clarification Warren.

I wasn't looking for the IETF to make some determination regarding
IPR, only that the WG be informed with enough time in mind to take it
into consideration.  This had already gone to LC, but I missed your
post to v6ops.

The IPR disclosure states that it refers to section 7, which is about
NAT64 things.  One alternative /might/ be to simply remove that
section from this document.  Another alternative is to do nothing and
just let things proceed.

-Erik

(I personally don't intend to implement afresh anything from section
7, just as I don't intend to implement Extended Ping, what with
Juniper's IPR disclosure on it.  But that's just me.)