On 11/11/2009, at 3:49 AM, Sandra Murphy wrote: > One of the questions that we did not get to in the meeting Monday was a > question of IPR. > > An IPR claim has been registered against the wg draft > draft-ietf-sidr-roa-validation-03.txt. IPR issues were specifically > mentioned as a deterrent in a recent call for wg adoption of a draft.
Because that is my understanding of the choice facing the IETF in all WG, that if faced with work which makes no IPR claim, and work which does, the IETF is entitled to, and in fact often does, preference the work with no IPR claim. > > I'd like the wg to consider the wg stance on working on IPR'd technologies. > We can reject such work, we can allow such work, we can allow it with > stipulations as to the acceptable terms, etc. > > Express your opinion of what you would like to see and why. I would like to see my voluntary contribution in the IETF be made in the spirit of openness and benefit to all. My personal preference is not to work on technologies which are encumbered by other people's IPR. Of course your question is motivated by specifics. I would like to try and address the specifics. In that spirit Sandy, I regard draft-pmohapat-sidr-pfx-validate as a functional attack or a kind of "DOS" on IETF process. In effect, by disclosing an IPR claim, and then extending it in an apparently capricious fashion to a current WG document that did not reflect the non-IETF contributions of any Cisco-employees, namely draft-ietf-sidr-roa-validation, the IPR claimants appear to be attempting some form of hijack of the IETF process. When Cisco employees attend IETF, and participate in the mailing lists, their contributions made openly are done so under the conditions of the 'note well' and so do not (in my opinion) buttress their IPR claim. If they have a moral right to recognition in the draft, I am happy to discuss this. My co-author and I have discussed this IPR issue, and we specifically disclaim any personal IPR over the concepts that we believe reflect the WG's considerations on our document. This of course does not mean that these concepts are not subject to IPR claims, but Steve Kent's postings regarding prior art appear to be extremely relevant to the draft I co-authored, and the extension of the IPR claim by Cisco over this particular draft is not helpful. I feel that this document is a reflection of ideas discussed openly in this WG, for a very long time, and I have already informed at least one potential prior-art holder that I and my co-author do not claim any rights over any technology or ideas in this document and nor does our employer. If draft-pmohapat-sidr-pfx-validate was revised to reflect mechanisms, without claiming to define semantics, if it cited the existing WG draft which is on semantics and not mechanisms, recognised the contributions made to that draft by open WG process, and assuming that it also reflected the large body of prior art in routing security, I think a draft on mechanisms should be adopted. -George PS this is my individual response, and does not necessarily reflect the views of my co-author except where clearly stated. _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
