You know, I'm being stupid about this. The IPR was established a while back to keep my options open for doing a startup. I've long since given up on that idea, so we'll make the IPR unrestricted and unencumbered, and I'll look into having the IPR claim withdrawn altogether. Sorry for the run around. PF
________________________________ From: Geoff Huston [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wed 5/28/2008 3:51 AM To: Paul Francis Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [GROW] FIB scaling through configuration > I need to point out that Cornell owns IPR on this. Even though this precise approach was described and discussed in the Big-Internet mailing list back in 1992? For those with memories that extend back to then such claims of proprietary ownership of the same concept some 16 years later appear to be somewhat ambitious. [As a side note, this IPR stuff is getting to be overwhelming in a number of ways. I have an increasing sympathy for the view that espouses that open standards should work within a scope of describing openly available unencumbered technology, and that private ownership of a concept with restrictions and encumberences on third party use should take it out of the public realm of open standardisation. But thats a topic for another mailing list of course!] In any case, for the record, I oppose bringing this IPR-encumbered work into GROW. If Cornell are prepared to make a firm undertaking to the IETF in the usual manner of unrestricted and unencumbered access, or are prepared to withdraw their IPR claim (well, I can dream!), then my opposition to this proposal for GROW to take on this approach may change. regards, Geoff
_______________________________________________ GROW mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
