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 (_rtgwg@ietf.org_ <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
