On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 10:46 AM, Michael Richardson <[email protected]> wrote: > > thanks for the reply. > > Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <[email protected]> wrote: > > It is largely unwritten Michael, > > > That's ultimately a WG decision, and part of that decision is that we > > want to assess if the IPR on CGA is an issue or not. > > > My take is that we should adopt the work if we agree on the overall > > idea, knowing that CGA is one way of getting there; and then refine > > this as a WG. > > a) Hosnieh's proposals > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-rafiee-6man-ssas/ > > might not suffer from the same IPR. > > b) I wonder what is the expiry on the IPR. CGA is more than a decade old now. >
Date(s) granted or applied for (YYYY-MM-DD): 303951.01 - 2003/03/27 301073.02 - 2002/09/12 I think that these patents do not expire before 20 years. But Microsoft grants royalty free licensing to all implementers. Behcet > > -- > Michael Richardson <[email protected]>, Sandelman Software Works > -= IPv6 IoT consulting =- > > > _______________________________________________ 6lo mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo
