Hi Yaron,
thanks for clarifying the situation.
The overall disclosure process still somewhat escaped us and we were
unclear as to when such statements need to be published.
If we made a mistake, I hereby apologize; we know better now.
We mainly wanted to clear our names of any malicious intent. I am glad
that memory has been restored.
regards,
- prati
On 3/22/2010 9:06 PM, Yaron Sheffer wrote:
Hi Frederic,
this is correct, however we did not share this information because it
was an individual submission at the time, and we expected Cisco to do
the right thing, i.e. to inform the WG in a timely manner (and later,
we simply forgot).
For some reason, Cisco chose to publish the IPR statement more than a
year after the application was published by the patent office. It was
Cisco's responsibility, and your personal responsibility, to follow
IETF due process here.
Thanks,
Yaron
On 22.3.2010 17:16, Frederic Detienne wrote:
Hi Paul,
I am still puzzled that you see fit to check in private with Yoav and
in public with us.
For the records, at least one of the co-chairs (Yaron) was advised
about the IPR at the same time as Yoav.
regards,
fred
On 22 Mar 2010, at 15:09, Paul Hoffman wrote:
At 9:51 AM +0100 3/22/10, Frederic Detienne wrote:
I am afraid you are mistaken. Yoav, Yaron, Pratima and I had a
discussion about the draft's IPR back in Dublin in July 2008. We
told back then that we would have rights released. The process
takes its own time but as far as Pratima and I are concerned, we
did due diligence.
Thank you.
Will you share your assumptions directly with us next time ?
As WG co-chair, I need to trust the words and intentions of active
WG contributors as much as I can. When the Cisco IPR statement for
SIR came out, I was surprised, so I asked your co-author, Yoav Nir,
about whether he had known about it. His response was that he had
not known about it until after Cisco's recent IPR statement. I took
him at his word.
To be clear: this is not a matter of which one of you is telling the
truth. It is quite easy that one of you misunderstood the other
because the discussion of SIR and QCD had gotten mixed up with the
discussion of session resumption and maybe-related topics. There is,
I believe, a chance that you told *me* about the pending patent and
I forgot. I doubt that, but I also admit to having prejudices about
IPR and so on that would cause me to have less-than-perfect memory.
I cut you and Yoav the same slack I cut myself.
To be clear, part 2: the patent situation with SIR has not affected
the WG's decision yet. There are plenty of companies whose generic
IETF patent licenses are similar to those offered by Cisco for SIR.
That is why my message to the WG informing them of Cisco's IPR
statement said "Before reacting to this announcement, please review
the IETF's IPR policy". Knee-jerk reactions to IPR statements can
cause more damage in the IETF than IPR statements themselves.
I still stand by my statement that I would have preferred Cisco to
issue the statement when we were discussing listing SIR in the
charter in this current round: more information is always good. I
apologize for saying "at least one of the co-authors on the named
draft was not informed of the IPR"; I could have said "I have heard
that at least one of the co-authors on the named draft was not
informed of the IPR", which is a more accurate statement.
--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium
_______________________________________________
IPsec mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
_______________________________________________
IPsec mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
