Subject: New Ad-Hoc Routing Protocol

From: [email-masked] (C. Toh)
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 20:48:25 +0100 (BST)

Dear Folks,

A new routing protocol for ad-hoc mobile network
known as associativity-based routing was born.

I am currently filing a US patent for this idea.

Interested parties please contact me.

Regards,

  C-K Toh, Cambridge University Computer Laboratory,
  New Museums Site, Pembroke Street, Cambridge CB2 3QG. 
  E-Mail : [email-masked]
  ------------------------------------------------------
  URL : http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/users/ct10000/index.html
  ------------------------------------------------------
  Tel : 44 01223 335444  Fax : 44 01223 334678
  ------------------------------------------------------

---

From: [email-masked] (Joseph P. Macker)
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 16:21:53 -0400

CK-
There aren't many rules here, but IETF mailing lists are not for soliciting
or advertising...
I personally view your note as overstepping that boundary.

We'd love to hear your ideas or thoughts on mobile-mesh or ad-hoc
networking expressed in this open forum.  Sounds like you have some.  Maybe
you would like to present these at the BOF in Montreal ;-).

Don't turn me into a mailing list moderator ;-(. 
-Joe

>  E-Mail : [email-masked]

    _/      _/ _/_/_/_/  _/       Joseph P. Macker, Code 5544
   _/_/    _/ _/     _/ _/        Naval Research Laboratory
  _/  _/  _/ _/_/_/_/  _/         Center for High Assurance Computer Systems
 _/    _/_/ _/   _/   _/          [email-masked]
_/      _/ _/     _/ _/_/_/_/     http://tonnant.itd.nrl.navy.mil/macker.html

---

From: "vivek (v.) kapil" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 22:36:00 -0400

That's a great news CK, but why don't you present this idea
at the next IETF in Montreal. You may want to talk to
appropriate folks to arrange a BOF. Should you wish to discuss
here, I am sure lot of us will be ready to listen and give
commnents.

BTW, I thought if some idea ever becomes a standard thru' IETF
(I mean internet standard), one has to waive rights of patents.
You can consult IETF authorities re this.

Regards,

Vivek Kapil
[email-masked]

---

From: Charlie Perkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 96 07:46:13 -0500

>   ==   "vivek (v.) kapil" <[email-masked]>

> You can consult IETF authorities re this.

I have been intimately involved with one case of patent rights
as they pertain to IETF protocol standardization.  One does not
have to waive patent rights.  However, a working group will
usually favor unencumbered technology over patented technology,
as long as there isn't any technical reason for preferring the
patented technology.  Clearly, people would rather not pay if
they can get equivalent results in another way.

>>  ==  C-K Toh, Cambridge University Computer Laboratory,

>> Interested parties please contact me.

Is it possible to find out more about this proposal,
so that it can be compared to other ad-hoc proposals
that might be considered in the upcoming BOF?

Charlie P.

---

From: Steve Batsell <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 09:01:56 -0400

> You can consult IETF authorities re this.
mmnet:

I have two points to make on the recent mail traffic.

First of all, a BOF meeting for the Montreal IETF meeting in June is
being arranged, so there is no need for anyone else to try to arrange a
meeting. This BOF will be a follow-on to the December BOF meeting.

Secondly, I strongly oppose making any patented protocol an IETF
standard. For that matter, any "official" standard, because it
completely destroys the whole purpose of a standard as it is a negative
incentive for companies to implement the standard if they know they will
have to pay royalties. Quite to the oppose, I strongly support making
free code of all contenters for the standard available on the Internet.
The IETF has a long and honorable tradition of doing just this and I
believe it has served the Internet community well. I believe everybody
should have a chance to present their ideas at the ietf working group
meetings and those ideas deemed "good" should be implemented in code and
tested. Patented ideas have no place in the standards process, period
[unless the company wishes to waive their rights]. The IETF leaves
enough capability in their standards for companies to differentiate
themselves in the marketplace. 
-- 
Steve Batsell, Network Research Group Leader
MS  6367, Bldg 6012, 
Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN 37831
423-574-7401 (phone)
423-574-0680 (Fax)
[email-masked]
http://www.epm.ornl.gov/~sgb/net.html

---

From: Dave Johnson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 96 14:48:25 -0400

>You can consult IETF authorities re this.

The rules for dealing with patented technology are spelled out in
RFC 1602.  The relevant part of that RFC says:

  (A)  ISOC will not propose, adopt, or continue to maintain any
       standards, including but not limited to standards labelled
       Proposed, Draft or Internet Standards, which can only be
       practiced using technology or works that are subject to
       known copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other
       rights, except with the prior written assurance of the
       owner of rights that:

       l.   ISOC may, without cost, freely implement and use the
            technology or works in its standards work;

       2.   upon adoption and during maintenance of an Internet
            Standard, any party will be able to obtain the right
            to implement and use the technology or works under
            specified, reasonable, non-discriminatory terms; and

       3.   the party giving the assurance has the right and
            power to grant the licenses and knows of no other
            copyrights, patents, patent applications, or other
            rights that may prevent ISOC and members of the
            Internet community from implementing and operating
            under the standard.

So, the patent holder must at least grant licenses to anyone in a
"non-discriminatory" maner, the right to use the technology under
"reasonable" terms.  The general operating rule in the IETF with
respect to patents is to include patented technology in a standard
*only* when there is no suitable non-patented solution available.
Patented technology is sometimes also included in a standard as
an optional feature, when it offers some real advantages over other
solutions, but in this case it must at least be possible to use
the protocol without using the optional feature based on the patented
technology.  All other things being equal (or close), the patented
technology is not included in the standard.

					Dave