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

From: "Henderson, Thomas R" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 15:14:40 -0700

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2004 7:16 AM
> To: Henderson, Thomas R
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [Ospf-wireless-design] Design Team Problem Statement
> 
> 
> Henderson, Thomas R wrote:
> 
> >>>  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.
> >
> 
> 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.
> 

Section 6.5 of RFC 3668 states:
   Since IPR disclosures will be used by IETF working groups during
   their evaluation of alternative technical solutions, it is helpful if
   an IPR disclosure includes information about licensing of the IPR in
   case Implementing Technologies require a license.  Specifically, it
   is helpful to indicate whether, upon approval by the IESG for
   publication as RFCs of the relevant IETF specification(s), all
   persons will be able to obtain the right to implement, use,
   distribute and exercise other rights with respect to an Implementing
   Technology a) under a royalty-free and otherwise reasonable and non-
   discriminatory license, or b) under a license that contains
   reasonable and non-discriminatory terms and conditions, including a
   reasonable royalty or other payment, or c) without the need to obtain
   a license from the IPR holder.

Cisco's IPR statement is at:
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/cisco-ipr-draft-chandra-ospf-manet-ext-01.txt
It is not clear which specific mechanisms in this draft are being claimed.

Section 8 of RFC 3668 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.  But IETF working groups have the discretion
   to adopt technology with a commitment of fair and non-discriminatory
   terms, or even with no licensing commitment, if they feel that this
   technology is superior enough to alternatives with fewer IPR claims
   or free licensing to outweigh the potential cost of the licenses.

So it seems to me that the Cisco claim does not fall under the 
"royalty-free" category, so the working group can decide whether to adopt 
it at the working group's discretion, as discussed in Section 8.

Tom

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

---

From: Joe Macker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 10:59:36 -0400

I vote for preferring a non-IPR encumbered design.
I think we know how to do most of this from existing work that is 
nonencumbered.

-Joe

---

From: Thomas Heide Clausen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 17:46 +0200

Although I have not studied the IETF IPR RFC's and the IPR statement in 
question in detail (travelling, limited bandwidth...), I agree with Joe and 
Richard: if at all possible, I too prefer IPR-unencumbered designs. 

Cheers,

--thomas

...... Original Message .......
On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 10:59:36 -0400 Joe Macker <[email-masked]>

---

From: "Madhavi W. Chandra" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 13:04:01 -0400

I've consulted with our legal team.  Cisco legal is willing to 
add language to clarify our statement an in
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/cisco-ipr-draft-fenton-identified-mail-00.txt

Basically, it means that we will not charge royalties except 
for parties that try to charge us royalties.  For any further 
inquiries, please contact Robert Barr ([email-masked]) from our
legal team.

Having said that, I don't think Cisco's proposals should be 
overlooked or considered IPR-encumbered.  And, they have shown
good performance as presented by Tom.

Thanks,
Madhavi

---

From: Joe Macker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 15:15:50 -0400

>good performance as presented by Tom.
We can choose to work with IPR (at whatever level) but I think IPR and 
design tradeoff issues should be clear.

I know of the Boeing unreliable vs. reliable flooding tradeoff study.
I thought the reliability mechanism showed poor scaling performance in 
Tom's results...

Is this the analysis you are referring to?

---

From: Alex Zinin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 12:34:44 -0700

Madhavi, et al-

I've been watching this discussion. A few points I would like to make.

1. If Cisco legal would like to update their statement on the draft,
   please make sure they follow up and submit it appropriately to
   the IETF secretariat. Robert Barr knows every detail. Until then,
   from the IETF perspective, Cisco's policy is what's currently
   on the web site.

2. I will note that even after the policy update, the proposal would
   technically still be IPR-encumbered, yet with further clarified
   policy. This means that every person on this team (and later in
   the WG) still needs to take IPR into consideration when making
   up their mind.

3. I'd like to remind that the results of the work within this DT
   are presented to the WG as recommendations. This presentation
   should include IPR considerations. It is then up to the WG to
   make the final decision whether to go with the DT's recommendation
   or not.

I hope you guys will be able to make rapid progress.
Thanks.
   
-- 
Alex
http://www.psg.com/~zinin

---

From: "Acee Lindem" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 16:13:31 -0400

Hi Madhavi,

I don't want to debate IPR too much. However, I think it would be
good to get a statement for OSPF Wireless extensions similar to the 
one you reference posted on the IETF web site. 

Thanks,
Acee

---

From: "Madhavi W. Chandra" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 13:16:13 -0400

Hi Acee,

I will let Cisco legal know.   I also hope this puts the IPR
debate to rest on the mailing list.  However, as always, any
IPR related issues can be directed to Robert Barr ([email-masked]).

Thanks!
-Madhavi

On Wed, Sep 22, 2004 at 04:13:31PM -0400, Acee Lindem wrote:
> >>question in detail (travelling, limited bandwidth...), I agree with Joe 
> >>and Richard: if at all possible, I too prefer IPR-unencumbered designs. 
> >>
> >>Cheers,
> >>
> >>--thomas
> >>
> >>>>"royalty-free" category, so the working group can decide whether to 
> >>adopt >>it at the working group's discretion, as discussed in Section 8.
> >>>>
> >>>>Tom
> >>>>