In message <[email protected]> IETF Secretariat writes: > > Dear Alia Atlas, John Drake, Spencer Giacalone, Stefano Previdi, David Ward: > > An IPR disclosure that pertains to your Internet-Draft entitled "OSPF Traffic > Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions" (draft-ietf-ospf-te-metric-extensions) was > submitted to the IETF Secretariat on 2013-09-17 and has been posted on the > "IETF > Page of Intellectual Property Rights Disclosures" > (https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2199/). The title of the IPR disclosure is > "Cisco's Statement of IPR Related to draft-ietf-ospf-te-metric- > extensions-04.""); > > The IETF Secretariat > > _______________________________________________ > OSPF mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
Since two of the authors are named on the patent, it is hard to understand how they could not have known about the IPR. Since the patent was applied for in 2004 and the first iteration of this draft was in 2011, and at least two co-authors of the draft knew about the patent by way of also being co-inventors of the patent, this appears to be a blatent late disclosure of IPR. Would the authors please explain how this was allowed to occur. Also, the patent seems (to me) to apply only to local-repair paths and not to primary paths. Would the inventors please confirm (or deny). I'm not sure how all the prior art on using multiple metrics, including additive constraints on "paths", could be construed as not applying to "local-repair paths". But then again, I'm not a lawyer and hope never to be one. The patent system at work again. Curtis _______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
