Hi all, Since Loa quotes me extensively from a thread about a completely different draft, perhaps I had better state my opinion on this draft.
I hate to be standing in the way of progressing work that it is a clear a number of people want to see move forward, but I find the IPR disclosure against this draft to be inconvenient. Since the reference is to an unpublished patent application we cannot look it up to find out whether we (as individuals) think it applies to our implementations. Furthermore, we can't try to work out a solution that is unencumbered because we don't know what the patent application covers. This might not be an issue except for the fact that the IPR disclosure seems to include licensing terms that are different from the commonly used "Company will not assert any patents owned or controlled by Company against any party for making, using, selling, importing or offering for sale a product that implements the standard, provided, however that Company retains the right to assert its patents (including the right to claim past royalties) against any party that asserts a patent it owns or controls (either directly or indirectly) against Company." I think it is important for the working group to seek to develop solutions that either completely unencumbered by IPR or that are available on free-to-implementers terms. It may turn out that this is not possible with the disclosed IPR, but I think the WG should try. In the current situation, I don't see how the WG can make such an attempt until it has seen the IPR and so I do not support the WG adopting the document at the moment. Circumstances may change in the future. To be clear, I am not asking IPR-holder to vary its commercial behaviour. I am not making any comment on the IPR-holder's rights to impose whatever license they want, and I am not asking them to vary their terms. Thanks, Adrian > -----Original Message----- > From: rtgwg [mailto:rtgwg-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Loa Andersson > Sent: 09 October 2016 13:55 > To: firstname.lastname@example.org; rt...@ietf.org; rtgwg-cha...@ietf.org; bfd-cha...@ietf.org; > mpls-cha...@ietf.org > Subject: Re: WG adoption poll on draft-nitish-vrrp-bfd-04 > > Folks, > > When the mpls wg last called draft-ietf-mpls-bfd-directed we received > the following comment related the IPRs disclosed for this document: > > "Ross, thanks for this notice. > I need to read the IPR referenced by the disclosure, but pending > that, I do not support this document going forward in its current > state. > > I think it is important for the working group to seek to develop > solutions that either completely unencumbered by IPR or that is > available on free-to-implementers terms. It may turn out that this > is not possible with the disclosed IPR, but I think the WG should > try. > > For the avoidance of doubt: I am not making any comment on the > IPR-holder's rights to impose whatever license they want, and I am > not asking them to vary their terms. > > I do note that it would be convenient if the IPR holder updated the > disclosure to show that it applies to the current WG draft. > > Thanks, > > Adrian" > > The document has since then been blocked by failure to reach a > consensus on the IPR. In the mean time there has also been new > technical comments that the authors tried to address. > > The Patent application referred to in the disclosure is: > > Appl no: US Serial No.: 14/512,259 > Appl date: October 13, 2014 > > Later updated to: > Patent, Serial, Publication, Registration, or Application/File number(s) > US Serial No: 14/846580, filed Sept 4, 2015 > > This document has a very similar (not to say identical) IPR disclosure > referencing: > > Appl.No: US Serial No: 14/512.259 > Appl.date: October 13, 2014 > > (for some reason this has not been updated. > > I note the same thing as Adrian, it would be convenient if the IPR > holder updated the disclosure to show that it applies to the current > WG draft(s). > > For the time being and for the very same reason that apply to the mpls > wg document I do not support this document being adopted as a wg doc, > unless it is clearly stated that the goal is to create a standard that > is that the working group to seek to develop a solution that either is > completely unencumbered by IPR or that is available on free-to- > implement terms. > > /Loa > > > > On 29/09/2016 23:44, Chris Bowers wrote: > > RTGWG, > > > > This email starts a two week poll to gauge consensus on adopting > > draft-nitish-vrrp-bfd-04 > > as an RTGWG working group document. > > > > The BFD working group is also copied on this adoption poll. We > > encourage participants in > > BFD working group to provide their input on the adoption poll. And > > should this document > > be adopted as an RTGWG document, we would plan to copy the BFD WG on > emails > > related to this document to benefit from the BFD expertise in that WG in > > the development > > of this document. > > > > Please send your comments to the RTGWG mailing list (email@example.com_ > > <mailto:rt...@ietf.org>) indicating support > > or opposition to the adoption of this document, along with the reasoning > > for that support > > or opposition. > > > > If you are listed as a document author or contributor, please respond to > > this email stating > > whether or not you are aware of any relevant IPR. The response needs > > to be sent to the > > RTGWG mailing list. The document will not advance to the next stage > > until a response has > > been received from each author and each individual that has contributed > > to the document. > > > > At this point, the document has the following IPR disclosure associated > > with it. > > _https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2739/_ > > > > This adoption poll will end on Friday October 14^th . > > > > Thanks, > > Chris and Jeff > > > > > > -- > > > Loa Andersson email: l...@mail01.huawei.com > Senior MPLS Expert l...@pi.nu > Huawei Technologies (consultant) phone: +46 739 81 21 64 > > _______________________________________________ > rtgwg mailing list > rt...@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg