Hi Paul,
I am still puzzled that you see fit to check in private with Yoav and in public
with us.
For the records, at least one of the co-chairs (Yaron) was advised about the
IPR at the same time as Yoav.
regards,
fred
On 22 Mar 2010, at 15:09, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> At 9:51 AM +0100 3/22/10, Frederic Detienne wrote:
>> I am afraid you are mistaken. Yoav, Yaron, Pratima and I had a discussion
>> about the draft's IPR back in Dublin in July 2008. We told back then that we
>> would have rights released. The process takes its own time but as far as
>> Pratima and I are concerned, we did due diligence.
>
> Thank you.
>
>> Will you share your assumptions directly with us next time ?
>
> As WG co-chair, I need to trust the words and intentions of active WG
> contributors as much as I can. When the Cisco IPR statement for SIR came out,
> I was surprised, so I asked your co-author, Yoav Nir, about whether he had
> known about it. His response was that he had not known about it until after
> Cisco's recent IPR statement. I took him at his word.
>
> To be clear: this is not a matter of which one of you is telling the truth.
> It is quite easy that one of you misunderstood the other because the
> discussion of SIR and QCD had gotten mixed up with the discussion of session
> resumption and maybe-related topics. There is, I believe, a chance that you
> told *me* about the pending patent and I forgot. I doubt that, but I also
> admit to having prejudices about IPR and so on that would cause me to have
> less-than-perfect memory. I cut you and Yoav the same slack I cut myself.
>
> To be clear, part 2: the patent situation with SIR has not affected the WG's
> decision yet. There are plenty of companies whose generic IETF patent
> licenses are similar to those offered by Cisco for SIR. That is why my
> message to the WG informing them of Cisco's IPR statement said "Before
> reacting to this announcement, please review the IETF's IPR policy".
> Knee-jerk reactions to IPR statements can cause more damage in the IETF than
> IPR statements themselves.
>
> I still stand by my statement that I would have preferred Cisco to issue the
> statement when we were discussing listing SIR in the charter in this current
> round: more information is always good. I apologize for saying "at least one
> of the co-authors on the named draft was not informed of the IPR"; I could
> have said "I have heard that at least one of the co-authors on the named
> draft was not informed of the IPR", which is a more accurate statement.
>
> --Paul Hoffman, Director
> --VPN Consortium
_______________________________________________
IPsec mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
