Subject: RE: [Ospf-wireless-design] Design Team Problem Statement

From: "Henderson, Thomas R" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 14:34:20 -0700

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Madhavi W. Chandra [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Friday, September 03, 2004 8:35 AM
> To: Acee Lindem
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [Ospf-wireless-design] Design Team Problem Statement
> 
> Agree with most of the problem statement.  Two imbedded comments:
> >   6) When possible, mechanisms from existing MANET 
> protocols should be
> >      leveraged.
> 
> I think we need to scope out the particular design aspects that we
> will consider in order to have a focused effort.  Please 
> refer to my email on 'DT Directions' for a suggested outline.  
> 
> I believe that we should tack on timelines and milestones to help
> us be effective.

I agree that it would be worth trying to establish these-- thanks
for your first cut.

> 
> >   7) Technology without IPR claims should be preferred over 
> technology
> >      with IPR claims (ala section 8 of RFC 3668).
> 
> I hope we consider performance of the technology, and not reject a
> design just because it has an IPR statement attached to it.  
> Especially,
> since many IPR claims are purely defensive...as is Cisco's.
> 

Would you agree to this rephrasing:  "The design team will use 
RFC 3668 guidance for dealing with IPR claims."?  

RFC 3668 supersedes RFC 2026 Section 10, and my reading of it
suggests to me that it should not cause any trouble for someone 
with a purely defensive IPR claim.

Tom

_______________________________________________
Ospf-wireless-design mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf-wireless-design

---

From: "Madhavi W. Chandra" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 09:35:40 -0400

> I agree that it would be worth trying to establish these-- thanks

Great!  I hope we can settle in on a plan as a group.

> RFC 3668 guidance for dealing with IPR claims."?  

Sounds good.  By the way, do we have to publish the problem
statement/timeline outline as an ID...or is an email record 
enough?

Thanks,
Madhavi

---

From: Joe Macker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 10:53:31 -0400

>statement/timeline outline as an ID...or is an email record 
I'd like to hear Acee's comments, but my view of the SHORT problem 
statement we were drafting is like a consensified DT charter statement.  
Initially, I would say something more than an e-mail but less than an 
ID. If we decide on a longer detailed problem statement revisions (ala 
Baker, et al) then an ID makes sense. For WG level, this summary 
information obviously resides on the WG IETF website.  What do you do 
for DTs? It is possible to add a link from the IETF WG homepage to a DT 
page to avoid cluttering the OSPF page if that makes sense. Just a thought?

---

From: Richard <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 07:15:51 -0700

>with a purely defensive IPR claim.

RFC 3668 does not contain the word "defensive".  How can we be sure a
patent is "purely defensive"?  I think the key term is "royalty-free
licensing". Section 8 states: "In general, IETF working groups prefer
technologies with no known IPR claims or, for technologies with claims
against them, an offer of royalty-free licensing." If Cisco writes an
IPR statement that states anyone can use the protocol royalty-free if
it is included in an IETF standard or a standards-track RFC, that would
be one way to be sure the IPR claim is purely defensive. SRI wrote such
an IPR statement for TBRPF.

Richard

---

From: "Acee Lindem" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 16:01:47 -0400

Actually this isn't the highest thing on my priority list so I'd
be more than happy to turn over the problem statement to Tom (since
he was nominated as DT leader) or someone else.