[WG Chair Hat off]
Hi Alvaro,
To my knowledge, there are various IPR claims on the architecture draft.
Obviously, people must read the various
IPR claims andi make their own decisions.
a) On using the MRT algorithm for fast-reroute with trying MRT-BLUE and
going to MRT-RED if that fails. (Initial approach
in the first versions of the draft).
b) MRT forwarding encapsulations
c) Partial deployment computations for MRT-FRR - but the part in the
algorithm draft is just a simplification of the MRT algorithm
so it can be called.
d) Various multicast-related aspects.
draft-enyedi-rtgwg-mrt-algorithm is based on Gabor's dissertation work.
The extensions to that for computing which MRT to use
for an alternate were developed jointly in the IETF context.
I don't believe that (b), (c), or (d) apply to the algorithm draft. Andras
and Gabor can answer more whether they think that (a)
applies.
Alia
On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 3:16 PM, Alvaro Retana (aretana)
<[email protected]>wrote:
> On 10/22/13 4:13 PM, "Gábor Sándor Enyedi" <
> [email protected]> wrote:
>
> [WG Chair Hat Off]
>
> Gabor (and Andras, and Alia and Chris):
>
> I don't know about any IPR . . . his draft is only describing algorithms.
>
> It's interesting to me that there are IPR disclosures (from both
> Ericsson and Juniper) attached to the architecture draft, but not to this
> draft.
>
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?option=document_search&document_search=draft-ietf-rtgwg-mrt-frr-architecture
>
>
> I would have thought that the IPR would be attached here (in the
> algorithm draft) since it provides the details of how the architecture can
> be implemented.
>
> Given the discussion (in the thread where I made some comments to the
> algorithm draft) about where the limits of the algorithm vs the profile
> are, and whether one is part of the other or not, it surprises me that no
> one has claimed any IPR on this draft: there seems to be significant
> leakage and overlap between what's in the architecture and how the
> algorithm operates. In my mind, that either means that the claims over the
> architecture are very narrow, or that something should be declared for
> the algorithm.
>
> It would be nice if you checked again about the overlap, or if you
> clarified what specifically is covered in the architecture draft. Of
> concern to me are the terms from Ericsson ("Reasonable and
> Non-Discriminatory License to All Implementers with Possible
> Royalty/Fee."). I realize that it is out of the scope of the WG to talk
> about the applicability of terms, but this is not the first time that this
> topic comes up; take a look at the minutes from IETF 82:
> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/82/minutes/rtgwg.txt
>
> Thanks!
>
> Alvaro.
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtgwg mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
>
>
_______________________________________________
rtgwg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
