On 25/04/2013 10:09, Randy Bush wrote:
>> I came to the attention of the Chairs and the ADs during the call for
>> adoption that an IPR disclosure was likely pending on this draft. It
>> has since transpired.
>>
>> The disclosure can be reviewed here.
>>
>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?option=document_search&id_document_tag=draft-krishnan-opsawg-large-flow-load-balancing.
>>
>> In my opinion this is bit late frankly but short of 6701 remedy
>> territory. I have asked the chairs to extend the current call for
>> additional time (which they should chime in on), and I would ask that
>> if the disclosure alters you opinion of the document that you please
>> make your concerns known.
>>
>> I'd like to thank the authors for their candor, and the chairs for
>> bringing this to our attention.
>
> i sent a concerned private email to some folk. one replied
>
> The authors have indicated that the stuff on which they've filed the
> patent application is not the only mechanism that can be used for
> large flow detection - i.e. this can be implemented without using
> their to-be-encumbered technology.
>
> if this is the case, why not simply remove the to-be-encumbered
> technology from the document?
I agree; it's not worth the pain, for an example algorithm in an
Informational document. (The same goes for
draft-krishnan-ipfix-flow-aware-packet-sampling.)
Brian
>
> otherwise, we potentially will waste a lot of time over this ipr claim.
>
> randy
> _______________________________________________
> OPSAWG mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
>
_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
