> On Oct 23, 2014:3:22 PM, at 3:22 PM, Robert Raszuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> 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.
Chairs poll the authors and the WG. Anyone attending the meetings, or
otherwise “participating” is bound by the Note Well rules.
> 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 ;-)
It is ill advised and strongly discouraged to discuss details of IPR on
the IETF mailing lists.
—Tom
>
> Best,
> r.
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 8:22 PM, Benson Schliesser <[email protected]
> <mailto:[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 <mailto:[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/
>> <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
>>
>
