Subject: RE: [Capwap] Exisiting Implementation(s) for Submitted CAPWAP Proposals

From: "Darren Loher" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 16:49:12 -0700

I've asked similar questions.  To my knowledge, the only intellectual
property disclosure that has been filed in the CAPWAP working group is
regarding LWAPP.  You can read it at:

http://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/airespace-ipr-draft-calhoun-seamoby-lwapp.t
xt

I have not seen any disclosure from the authors of CTP, WiCoP or SLAPP.

-Darren

________________________________

From: Changming Liu [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Friday, August 19, 2005 8:50 PM
To: Darren Loher; Cheng Hong; Gopal Dommety; Mani, Mahalingam
(Mahalingam)
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [Capwap] Exisiting Implementation(s) for Submitted CAPWAP
Proposals

This brings up a very good question: is there any license/patent  issue
for any candidate proposal to be implemented by any vendor other than
the vendors of the authors? If so, has it be raised somewhere so that
whoever is willing  to implement is aware of it?

Thanks.

Changming

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
Behalf Of Darren Loher
Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2005 7:58 AM
To: Cheng Hong; Gopal Dommety; Mani, Mahalingam (Mahalingam)
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [Capwap] Exisiting Implementation(s) for Submitted CAPWAP
Proposals

One of the tenets of the IETF is "running code".  This is in fact a
requirement to elevating a draft to a draft-standard.  It is also (on
the "soft-side") a measure of strength and value for a given standard
when it is in place.  We are not at that stage yet, but it is a hurdle
that will need to be overcome to get a standard.

From BCP 9 / rfc2026:

4.1.2  Draft Standard
 
   A specification from which at least two independent and interoperable
   implementations from different code bases have been developed, and
   for which sufficient successful operational experience has been
   obtained, may be elevated to the "Draft Standard" level.  For the
   purposes of this section, "interoperable" means to be functionally
   equivalent or interchangeable components of the system or process in
   which they are used.  If patented or otherwise controlled technology
   is required for implementation, the separate implementations must
   also have resulted from separate exercise of the licensing process.
   Elevation to Draft Standard is a major advance in status, indicating
   a strong belief that the specification is mature and will be useful.
 
   The requirement for at least two independent and interoperable
   implementations applies to all of the options and features of the
   specification.  In cases in which one or more options or features
   have not been demonstrated in at least two interoperable
   implementations, the specification may advance to the Draft Standard
   level only if those options or features are removed.
 
   The Working Group chair is responsible for documenting the specific
   implementations which qualify the specification for Draft or Internet
   Standard status along with documentation about testing of the
   interoperation of these implementations.  The documentation must
   include information about the support of each of the individual
   options and features.  This documentation should be submitted to the
   Area Director with the protocol action request. (see Section 6)

 

-Darren

________________________________

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
Behalf Of Cheng Hong
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 9:20 PM
To: Gopal Dommety; Mani, Mahalingam (Mahalingam)
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [Capwap] Exisiting Implementation(s) for Submitted CAPWAP
Proposals

Hi Gopal,

Having running code is nice. However, before the group agree on the
common objective details and selection criteria, running code means
nothing. Interoperability is achieved by a well defined specification,
not the implementation of that specification (the running code). People
can implement the IP ugly, but it should still be able to interoperate
with other IP nodes. I guess the top priority now is to work on a
specification that contains features to meet our agreed objectives.
Emphasizing on running code now will just deviate us from the real goal.

cheers

Cheng Hong

	
________________________________

	From: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Gopal Dommety
	Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2005 2:34 AM
	To: Mani, Mahalingam (Mahalingam)
	Cc: [email-masked]
	Subject: RE: [Capwap] Exisiting Implementation(s) for Submitted
CAPWAP Proposals

	Thanks for the clarification. I am bit surprised  that there is
no need for an implentation of a protocol for it to be selected. 
	
	I understand that making minor extensions to Protocols are
necessary. However,  Fundmental/Significant deviations between the
specifications and implentations will not get us anycloser to the goal
of interoperability. 
	
	Cheers,
	-Gopal
	
	At 11:26 PM 8/15/2005 -0600, Mani, Mahalingam (Mahalingam)
wrote:

	There s no emphasis yet to running code at least not set as an
Objective or Evaluation criterion.

	One way to look at this is that as many as 15-16 implementation
experiences broadly fell into two categories; and the focus was to
identify and seek commonality in architecture/split which by itself has
been something to converge on; before contemplating possible
implementation adoptions given most of the candidate protocol specs kept
evolving quite a bit across the last two-three IETF sessions.

	-mani

	From: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Gopal Dommety
	Sent: Monday, August 15, 2005 6:04 PM
	To: [email-masked]
	Subject: [Capwap] Exisiting Implementation(s) for Submitted
CAPWAP Proposals

	Hello All,
	
	During the last IETF, I realized that some of the submitted
proposals might differ from what is  implemented significantly.  I was
wondering if there is any documentation of the number of implemetations
for each of the CAPWAP Protocols (as submitted)? Is there any emphasis
to "running code" for the CAPWAP protocols being considered?

	Regards, 
	
	-Gopal

---

From: Dan Harkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2005 11:34:00 -0700

I am not aware of any IPR related to SLAPP. I have a question about
LWAPP's disclosure though.

  Pat, it says, 

	"The covenant shall not apply to (and Airspace shall be free
	 to assert the above identified claims against) any party that
	 asserts a patent it owns or controls against Airespace, either
	 directly or indirectly, based on implementation or operation of
	 a system utilizing the LWAPP protocol."

Does that mean the patent being asserted against Airespace must be
against some part of the LWAPP protocol or just for something that's in
a system that also happens to utilize LWAPP?

  Also, does your new employer who I imagine purchased Airespace's IPR
also agree with this statement?

  Dan.

On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 16:49:12 PDT you wrote
> http://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/airespace-ipr-draft-calhoun-seamoby-lwapp.txt
> 
_______________________________________________
Capwap mailing list
[email-masked]
http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap