Hi Yiu,

Can you provide some information about the reasoning behind your support?

I have spent some time today reading the case studies in section 4 of RFC3669, 
and it would be useful to know if you think that any of these are applicable 
here and why.

Thanks,
Ian

> On 04 Oct 2016, at 16:37, Lee, Yiu <[email protected] 
> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> 
> I support to move forward.
>  
> From: "[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>" 
> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
> Date: Tuesday, October 4, 2016 at 3:45 AM
> To: Ian Farrer <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>, softwires 
> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
> Cc: "[email protected] 
> <mailto:[email protected]>" 
> <[email protected] 
> <mailto:[email protected]>>
> Subject: RE: [Softwires] PLEASE READ - IPR Disclosure question on 
> draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-multicast - Respond by 18/10/16
> Resent-From: <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
> Resent-To: <[email protected] 
> <mailto:[email protected]>>, <[email protected] 
> <mailto:[email protected]>>, <[email protected] 
> <mailto:[email protected]>>, <[email protected] 
> <mailto:[email protected]>>, <[email protected] 
> <mailto:[email protected]>>
> Resent-Date: Tuesday, October 4, 2016 at 3:45 AM
>  
> Re-,
>  
> As mentioned in another message, I don’t see how this IPR applies to the 
> draft given that the patent itself cites the softwire draft in the prior art!
>  
> I support the draft to advance in the publication process.
>  
> Cheers,
> Med
>  
> De : Softwires [mailto:[email protected] 
> <mailto:[email protected]>] De la part de Ian Farrer
> Envoyé : mardi 4 octobre 2016 09:39
> À : softwires
> Cc : [email protected] 
> <mailto:[email protected]>
> Objet : [Softwires] PLEASE READ - IPR Disclosure question on 
> draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-multicast - Respond by 18/10/16
>  
> Hi,
>  
> A few weeks back, we sent out an question asking the WG their opinion on how 
> to proceed with draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-multicast in light of the IPR 
> disclosure. No responses to this question were received.
>  
> According to RFC3669, in order for a draft with an IPR disclosure to advance 
> there needs to be consensus of the WG. No response is not consensus to 
> proceed.
>  
> In light of this, we ask the WG again for their opinions on how to proceed. 
> If insufficient support is shown, then work on the draft will cease.
>  
> Please respond by 18th October.
>  
> thanks,
> Yong & Ian
>  
> Details of the IPR Disclosure are at:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2873/ 
> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2873/>
>  
> United States Patent # 9,014,189
> Date Granted: April 21, 2015
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  

_______________________________________________
Softwires mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires

Reply via email to