As far as I can tell, the formal IPR disclosure with IPR terms was not
filed until several days after that request.
Thus, the WG can not have considered it in the light of the actual terms.
When I asked one WG participant, he was quite surprised by the terms.
Given the difficulty both Huawei and Ericsson have gotten from IETF
participants over similar terms, I do not think this can be ignored.
Yours,
Joel
On 4/17/18 1:12 AM, Tianran Zhou wrote:
Hi Joel,
Thanks for reminding this important information.
Yes, we did the IPR poll when it became a WG draft. The IPR was disclosed then.
Please see
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/opsawg/current/msg04792.html
We did not received any objection based on this.
Thanks,
Tianran
-----Original Message-----
From: Joel M. Halpern [mailto:j...@joelhalpern.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2018 8:25 AM
To: opsawg-cha...@ietf.org
Subject: regarding draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-community: IPR call
Is the working group aware of the IPR disclosure China Mobile made against
this document? Specifically, that the IPR disclosure says that a license
may be required?
Normally, I would not even comment on that, and as you can see, I am not
commenting on the list about it.
But I note that this is a case where there is a clear workaround (just don't
do this). So I would expect that the shepherd report, whenever that is
produced, will need to discuss the IPR disclosure.
Yours,
Joel
_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list
OPSAWG@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
