All, Based on expert advice from Brian/Randy, we have removed all IPR related implementation detail from the latest version of the draft -- see below. http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-krishnan-opsawg-large-flow-load-balancing/
We have also updated the IPR disclosure (other notes section) to reflect this -- see below. https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2063/ Thanks, Ramki (on behalf of the co-authors) -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of ramki Krishnan Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2013 4:40 PM To: Brian E Carpenter; Randy Bush Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Call for adoption, draft-krishnan-opsawg-large-flow-load-balancing/ Thanks Brian, agreed. Thanks, Ramki -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Brian E Carpenter Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2013 4:35 PM To: Randy Bush Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Call for adoption, draft-krishnan-opsawg-large-flow-load-balancing/ 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 _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
