Looking at this I am not sure what the problem is ? If I am not mistaken none of the RFC7024 authors are associated with the IPR disclosure neither are even listed in the ack section.
Chairs normally ask only authors for IPR statement. Anyone can patent anything and this is even patent outside of US. In any case to see the details one should examine what exactly has been patented in 2003. Quick patent search around 2003 with the same authors reveals a few patents for "hub-and-spoke for virtual private networks". But let's observe that the above is technically slightly different then "virtual hub and spoke idea" which perhaps some legal skilled folks may not be able to easily grasp ;-) Best, r. On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 8:22 PM, Benson Schliesser <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, Martin - > > Just to be clear, can you elaborate on what you see as the options here? > > I could imagine some combination of choices: 1) keeping the status quo, > acknowledging that the new IPR has been disclosed, and continuing to > proceed with the document as-is, 2) changing status to something other than > Proposed Standard, 3) revising the content (e.g. as a new RFC?) to avoid > IPR issues that are objectionable, or 4) evaluating alternatives. > > Are you also aware of any options for a punitive response? I'm not sure > whether this would be against the inventors, company that owns the IPR, > employees of that company that should have known about the IPR, etc. I'm > also not sure what this punitive response would actually be. BCP 79 doesn't > seem to outline anything in this direction. But it seems clear to me that > the recent trends in late IPR disclosure are a problem for the IETF. > > Thanks for any feedback you can give. > -Benson > > > Martin Vigoureux <[email protected]> > October 19, 2014 at 2:36 PM > Working Group, > > we've received couple months ago an extremely late IPR disclosure (much > later than what can be expected as per rules in BCP79) against RFC 7024: > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2415/ > > Please take a careful look at the licensing declaration and let us know > whether this is subject to question RFC 7024 (both in its content and/or > status). > > Thank you > > M&T > >
