Subject: RE: [Capwap] A note on IPR issues

From: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 18:16:39 +0200

<ad hat on>

Can I ask all WG participants to refrain from accusations and/or playing
amateur lawyer. It is not appropriate to speak (I think) to accuse people
of intentions that you suspect. If you have proof of bad intentions, pls 
send such proof to the chairs and the AD, but don't start discussions
here about things you have no proof of.

Let me (as AD) go and dive into the exact process we need to follow here. 
I will probably need a few days to do a proper job.
You can all do the same if you want to be prepared when I post my findings.
An important RFC to read is RFC3669. in addition to RFC3978 and 3979.

Meanwhile, people who have somthing to disclose can continue to do so.

It is also fine to try and converge on consensus about a question like:

  - does the WG want to continue work on a CAPWAP protocol that probably
    will have IPR claims against it>
  - does the WG want to try to change course and define a CAPWAP protocol
    from scratch, trying to avoid any IPR claims
  - does the working group rather close down and nopt work on a 
    standards track CAPWAP protocol?

<ad hat off>

Bert
-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Mani, Mahalingam (Mahalingam)
Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2005 00:11
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [Capwap] A note on IPR issues

The AD has pointed out the need to and usefulness of disclosing all IPR that there may be or known to be existing out there.
 
In addition - the chairs would urge the disclosures to be as detailed as can be in order to facilitate the WG to decide its course of action among the
many options this may lead to in terms of adoption of a protocol that the WG can come to a consensus on - an acceptable base protocol and work further
to get to an interoperable CAPWAP protocol.
 
An example of a clear (detailed) one is the ID#144 that points to related enough information for WG to review and form an opinion.
 
So - whether it is being expansive in scope - it will be indeed useful to the WG which has appeared to approach getting to a CAPWAP protocol based on
work done so far in the WG & evaluation exercise and WG's review of it.
 
-mani
_______________________________________________
Capwap mailing list
[email-masked]
http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap

---

From: Dan Harkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 13:16:05 -0700

Bert,

On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 18:16:39 +0200 you wrote
>     will have IPR claims against it>

There are examples of IETF protocols having IPR claims against them but
the terms are not uniform. If the terms for the IPR were like licensed
royalty-free with no restriction or licensed royalty-free with a very
specific field of use then I'd say yes, if not then I'd say no.

I don't think the claims against the proposals here are either.

The list in section 5.6 of RFC3669 looks to be ordered with a preference
that I share. I'd say the cut-off should be between the 4th and 5th,
4 or above (if royalty-free) then yes, 5 or below then no.

>     from scratch, trying to avoid any IPR claims

That would be very difficult at this point-in-time considering we don't
know exactly what the claim(s) is/are. Given that some of the proposals
are very generic and reuse existing technologies it seems the claim(s)
must be quite broad and therefore any work this group did would probably
end up being claimed in the same way that CTP, WiCOP, and SLAPP were.

>     standards track CAPWAP protocol?

All 4 proposals fall under a single IPR claim but the terms for one are
decidedly less onerous than the other three. That seems extremely unfair
and it looks like IPR is being used to influence the output of this
working group.

If we can't return to a level playing field-- where the terms to use all
proposals are exactly the same-- then I think we should just close down.

Furthermore, if the terms cannot be made less onerous, rise above the
line I mentioned above, then I would also reluctantly have to say we
should close down. This entire area is so encumbered I have a hard time
working to further encumber myself and everyone else (save one).

  Dan.