Michael, I won’t comment on the content of the application, but please find a couple clarifications inline.
> On Jul 5, 2016, at 7:00 AM, Scharf, Michael (Nokia - DE) > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Carlos, > > I can only comment on the second document listed in the third-party IPR > disclosure (http://www.google.com/patents/WO2016039798A1#npl-citations). I > have not been aware of the first one. Regarding the second patent > application, I am a bit confused by the intent of this IPR disclosure. > The intent of an IPR disclosure is to inform IETF WGs and participants. > To add some context: There is a publication, and actually that text may be > easier to read: > > Michael Scharf, Gordon T. Wilfong, Lisa Zhang: "Sparsifying network > topologies for application guidance", Proceedings of IFIP/IEEE IM 2015, May > 2015, pages 234-242 (http://dl.ifip.org/db/conf/im/im2015/135438.pdf) > > That paper refers to draft-ietf-alto-deployments at various places to explain > the background of ALTO (reference [4]). So, it is not surprise that > draft-ietf-alto-deployments is cited in the patent application. I am not a > lawyer. However, if I had assumed that an action according to RFC 3979 is > required in this situation, an IPR disclosure would obviously have been > submitted. > > In general, draft-ietf-alto-deployments is a long informational document that > surveys quite a number of use cases and technologies. Given that widely used > technologies such as CDN optimization and methods to obtain dynamic > connected-network topology via nodes are mentioned, it would be a huge > surprise to me there was no other IPR "somehow" related to some wording in > draft-ietf-alto-deployments, including e.g. IPR owned by Cisco Technology, > Inc. However, I am not sure what value IPR disclosures have for such an > informational document that does not give normative guidance. > Analysis is for the WG participants and potential implications (if any) to the WG (i.e., the IETF makes no determination about validity, informed decision, etc.) > Regarding the process, I am actually surprised that a patent search has been > performed as part of an OPS-DIR review, given e.g. what is written in RFC > 5706 Appendix A. And I think the wording of RFC 3979 Section 6.1.3 is that a > third party IPR disclosure is "encouraged". So far I have assumed that this > wording does not imply "mandatory". Maybe the IESG can better explain that? This comment is concerning to me. I performed an OPS-Dir review of draft-ietf-alto-deployments based-15 solely on Operational considerations, and RFC 5706 Appendix A. (By the way, I have not seen a response to that review.) However, I have *not* (of course!) performed a patent search. I do not understand the basis of you making that comment. If I am looking for IETF LC comments on specific operational issues, and Google search serves those hits over and over (which someone cannot unsee), I think the responsible thing is to disclose, and it is up for the WG to evaluate. Thanks, — Carlos. > > Michael > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2016 1:48 AM > To: Mirja Kühlewind > Cc: IETF discussion list; [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [alto] IPR Disclosure Carlos Pignataro's Statement about IPR > related to draft-ietf-alto-deployments belonging to Alcatel Lucent > > Hi, Mirja, > > One clarification, for the record, inline. > >> On Jul 4, 2016, at 11:47 AM, Mirja Kühlewind >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> find below an IPR disclosure that was filed last week related to >> draft-ietf-alto-deployments. This is a third-party disclosure for a patent >> application that lists this draft as ‚document to be considered related‘. >> See: >> >> https://data.epo.org/publication-server/rest/v1.0/publication-dates/20 >> 150902/patents/EP2913979NWA1/document.pdf >> >> The IETF last call for draft-ietf-alto-deployments was performed between >> June 7 and June 21, 2016, while the IPR disclosure was submitted afterwards >> (as reaction to the OPS-DIR review). >> > > I was actually the OPS-Dir Reviewer assigned to > draft-ietf-alto-deployments-15. > > I submitted my OPS-Dir review delayed, after the IETF LC ended, because I was > on vacation (and unreachable) when I received the OPS-Dir review assignment. > As part of my review, as I came across those two (not only the one you > include above) published patent applications potentially relating to the > subject matter as indicated in non-patent citations, I had to submit that 3rd > party disclosure. > > Thanks, > > — Carlos. > >> If this disclosure raises any concerns regarding the publication of this >> draft as RFC, please state your opinion on the [email protected] mailing. >> >> Thanks, >> Mirja - responsible AD >> >> >>> Am 27.06.2016 um 17:42 schrieb IETF Secretariat <[email protected]>: >>> >>> Dear Martin Stiemerling, Sebastian Kiesel, Stefano Previdi, Michael Scharf, >>> Hans Seidel: >>> >>> >>> An IPR disclosure that pertains to your Internet-Draft entitled "ALTO >>> Deployment Considerations" (draft-ietf-alto-deployments) was >>> submitted to the IETF Secretariat on and has been posted on the >>> "IETF Page of Intellectual Property Rights Disclosures" >>> (https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2814/). The title of the IPR >>> disclosure is "Carlos Pignataro's Statement about IPR related to >>> draft-ietf-alto-deployments belonging to Alcatel Lucent" >>> >>> >>> Thank you >>> >>> IETF Secretariat >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> alto mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto >> > _______________________________________________ alto mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
