On Wednesday, May 23, 2007 06:56:10 PM -0700 Lakshminath Dondeti
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Jeff,
On a first scan of your email I thought to myself, I agree with most of
it and so pondered about the problem that I was trying to put forth in
front of the community. The conclusion was tha
[Not speaking in any way for Cisco on this issue...]
Simon Josefsson wrote:
Such clauses may be acceptable when we know what the patent is, and what
it covers, but this refer to unpublished patent applications. This
particular license also explicitly enable Cisco to collect retroactive
royalti
Brian E Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 2007-05-23 14:19, Jeroen Massar wrote:
> ...
>>> Alternatively, directly look up
>>> http://www1.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/cisco-ipr-draft-claise-ipfix-export-per-sctp-stream-00.txt
>
>> (The above long formatted lines are not mine, 72 is a nice limit F
On 2007-05-23 14:19, Jeroen Massar wrote:
...
Alternatively, directly look up
http://www1.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/cisco-ipr-draft-claise-ipfix-export-per-sctp-stream-00.txt
(The above long formatted lines are not mine, 72 is a nice limit FYI)
Sorry to be blunt, but what exactly is the point again
