At 12:23 PM -0400 3/16/10, Sandra Murphy wrote:
We spent some time before and after the last meeting discussing IPR issues.
My view of the discussion is that the working group prefers
non-IPR'd technologies if given a choice, but there was no consensus
for rejecting IPR'd technologies completely. Therefore, drafts that
have IPR claims filed against them can both be adopted as working
group work items and be retained as working group work items.
--Sandy
I agree with your suggested way forward.
I contacted the IPR guy cited in the Cisco disclosure, provided
citations to previously published work in the area, and requested a
clarification of what was being claimed vs. what was acknowledged as
prior art. I am disappointed that he has not chosen to reply, after
a message in which he asked me to specify the IPR disclosure to which
I was responding :-).
Steve
_______________________________________________
sidr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
