Hi,
On Thu, 8 Jun 2006, Balazs Scheidler wrote:
On Thu, 2006-06-08 at 09:38 +0200, Rainer Gerhards wrote:
<Rainer>
I think using a patented technology inside a standard will definitely
hinder the acceptance of that standard. Especially if it is something as
trivial as syslog over tls. So my vote is to put this work on hold until
further clarification can be obtained. If that means we'll have no
syslog RFC, so be it. That would probably be the better choice...
<Bazsi>
My feelings are about the same. I don't really know the US patent system
specifics, how long does it take to have something concrete about the
patent?
[Minor note: I don't think that we can assume that it is being filed
within the USPTO.]
It appears to me (and I'm willing to take more input) that the general
consensus is that an IPR-encumbered syslog/tls document would not gain
acceptance within the development community.
I would like to do 2 things at this time:
1) I will ask Huawei to update their IPR claim to cover
draft-ietf-syslog-transport-tls-02.txt (the current disclosure only
covers -01.txt) and, if possible, to give us a bit more of a clue as to
what the IPR covers. Specifically from RFC 3979, Section 6.4.1:
In addition, if the IETF Document includes multiple
parts and it is not reasonably apparent which part of such IETF
Document is alleged to be Covered by the IPR in question, it is
helpful if the discloser identifies the sections of the IETF Document
that are alleged to be so Covered.
I believe that Hauwei does not need to fully disclose their IPR claim
but a clue would be helpful. I think that the section above was written
that way so that it could be possible to remove or modify a section so
that the document would no longer be covered by a claim. I don't know
that this is possible in this case but I'd like to explore that option.
2) I will ask our Advisor to give us some guidance on this. (Sam is
cc'd.) We agreed to a tight timeline for our deliverables without
considering that we would get hung up on this. A recommendation has been
made on the WG list that we proceed with syslog-transport-udp and
syslog-protocol while we see what becomes of the IPR claim of
syslog-transport-tls. We CAN submit syslog-transport-tls in a timely
fashion, as per our Charter, but I fear that it would not be accepted or
deployed by the community until the IPR issue is resolved. Moving forward
with the other two IDs would keep our momentum going and we could address
the issue of the IPR as soon as we can.
Thanks,
Chris
_______________________________________________
Syslog mailing list
Syslog@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
