Hi Curtis, The draft was first presented at IETF 80 in Prague in the Routing, ISIS, and OSPF WGs. At the time, the biggest concern was the overlap with other delay/loss encoding drafts in the CCAMP WG. I looked at the minutes of the 3 WGs and IPR was not declared or questioned. I also spoke to one of the patent authors and the timing of the IPR declaration was not intentional - both the draft/patent authors are co-authors on a fair number of Internet drafts and patents. In the future, we'll assure the IPR question is raised prior to making any draft an OSPF WG document. I won't comment as to whether the simple encoding and advertisement of these delay/loss metrics actually violates a patent specifying specific usage of the metrics. Thanks, Acee
On Oct 4, 2013, at 4:46 PM, Curtis Villamizar wrote: > > 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 _______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
