Chris, ok, you have pointed to the IPR IETF list, anyhow, one comment on this list is due:
> I do want to be clear on this subject. Hauwei is well within > their rights > to discover something while writing a Working Group document, > and then to > claim IPR on that discovery. This has happened in the past > which was why > the IETF started writing BCP 79 - currently RFC 3979. The > discussion of > the use of IPR in IETF documents has been very rocky but > overall, the IETF > is really just catching up with other standards developing > organizations. > Almost all other standards organizations have developed clear > rules about > bringing IPR into their documents and the IETF has done the same. There might (might!) be some reasoning for this in some cases. In our case, this is more than frivolous. I thought Huawei claims something the have "invented" before writing the tls document. If it really belongs to the document - I actually feel I shall be ripped of my work. I've just scanned the 3 (!) core pages of syslog-tls. It is nice to hear that Huawei has "discovered" how tls works. The only "novel" thing in the pages is using a byte-counted header. I think I can claim IPR on that because I introduced it in the -tls discussion (of course other people introduced this concept too, but I was the first one to apply it to syslog ;)). Huawei didn't even initially understand how this was supposed to work, so I and others (namely Anton, who could also start the patent race...) needed to explain in detail. Other than these things, there is not even any technical content in the document. It's a stupid simple protcol mapping. I am upset. I think I need to consider applying for a patent on the layered architecture for syslog as well as for using structured data. Sounds silly? I think it's less silly than what Huawei seems to claim. Probably I go for that. Folks, this is not the way I like to work. I have to re-word my mail from yesterday. In this case, Huawei actually seems to *abuse* an already *abusive patent system*. I have no understanding for this and I have a hard time understanding those folks that think this is the right course of action. I am not against patenting *invention* in a general sense. But I would like to see something *invented* (that means you design something that is *new*, aka "did not exist before"). And I definitely do not like to see that my work is stolen by someone else. I've contributed to this WG in the thought that would lead to a freely usable open standard. Looks like the GPL folks are actually right... If the claim is actually arisen out of -transport-tls, I will no longer work with the authors of this draft. I ask the WG to look for some other authors. I am staying tuned if the claim actually *roots* in -transport-tls. Rainer _______________________________________________ Syslog mailing list Syslog@lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
