Hi Frederic,
this is correct, however we did not share this information because it
was an individual submission at the time, and we expected Cisco to do
the right thing, i.e. to inform the WG in a timely manner (and later, we
simply forgot).
For some reason, Cisco chose to publish the IPR statement more than a
year after the application was published by the patent office. It was
Cisco's responsibility, and your personal responsibility, to follow IETF
due process here.
Thanks,
Yaron
On 22.3.2010 17:16, Frederic Detienne wrote:
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
_______________________________________________
IPsec mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
