FWIW: I agree with Chris proposal and intended course of action. Rainer
> -----Original Message----- > From: Chris Lonvick [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 5:27 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [Syslog] Draft-ietf-syslog-transport-tls-01.txt > > Hi, > > On Thu, 8 Jun 2006, Balazs Scheidler wrote: > > On Thu, 2006-06-08 at 09:38 +0200, Rainer Gerhards wrote: > > <Rainer> > >> I think using a patented technology inside a standard will > definitely > >> hinder the acceptance of that standard. Especially if it > is something as > >> trivial as syslog over tls. So my vote is to put this work > on hold until > >> further clarification can be obtained. If that means we'll have no > >> syslog RFC, so be it. That would probably be the better choice... > > > > <Bazsi> > > My feelings are about the same. I don't really know the US > patent system > > specifics, how long does it take to have something concrete > about the > > patent? > > > [Minor note: I don't think that we can assume that it is being filed > within the USPTO.] > > It appears to me (and I'm willing to take more input) that > the general > consensus is that an IPR-encumbered syslog/tls document would > not gain > acceptance within the development community. > > I would like to do 2 things at this time: > > 1) I will ask Huawei to update their IPR claim to cover > draft-ietf-syslog-transport-tls-02.txt (the current disclosure only > covers -01.txt) and, if possible, to give us a bit more of a > clue as to > what the IPR covers. Specifically from RFC 3979, Section 6.4.1: > In addition, if the IETF Document includes multiple > parts and it is not reasonably apparent which part of such IETF > Document is alleged to be Covered by the IPR in question, it is > helpful if the discloser identifies the sections of the > IETF Document > that are alleged to be so Covered. > I believe that Hauwei does not need to fully disclose their IPR claim > but a clue would be helpful. I think that the section above > was written > that way so that it could be possible to remove or modify a > section so > that the document would no longer be covered by a claim. I > don't know > that this is possible in this case but I'd like to explore > that option. > > 2) I will ask our Advisor to give us some guidance on this. (Sam is > cc'd.) We agreed to a tight timeline for our deliverables without > considering that we would get hung up on this. A > recommendation has been > made on the WG list that we proceed with syslog-transport-udp and > syslog-protocol while we see what becomes of the IPR claim of > syslog-transport-tls. We CAN submit syslog-transport-tls in a timely > fashion, as per our Charter, but I fear that it would not be > accepted or > deployed by the community until the IPR issue is resolved. > Moving forward > with the other two IDs would keep our momentum going and we > could address > the issue of the IPR as soon as we can. > > Thanks, > Chris > > _______________________________________________ > Syslog mailing list > [email protected] > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog > _______________________________________________ Syslog mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
