Folks, This is a heads-up that Ericsson has filed an IPR declaration to the IETF on this document. I realize this is a problem definition document, not a specification. But the document does have a section that surveys a number of different solutions, and I have personal knowledge that some of those may have Ericsson IPR on them. The IPR declaration will appear in the database as soon as the secretariat processes it, but it says that if the working group eventually develops some specification employing those solutions, then the licensing conditions that hold for RFC 3971 would also hold for such extensions. Those conditions are in legal terms "non-assert", i.e., in my layman's understanding employ the you-dont-sue-us-we-dont-sue-you model.
I am embarrassed that we are making this declaration so late, and its my fault. I have looked at this document before, but I only read it fully now that its up for IESG review. In particular, I had not looked at the section that discusses a number of possible solutions. In my defense I was already earlier tracking the solution document (draft-ietf-csi-send-proxy) and to my personal knowledge it has no IPR issues; the additional material in the problem definition draft took me by surprise. Jari _______________________________________________ CGA-EXT mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cga-ext
