Subject: RE: [Capwap] RE: IPR issues

From: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 10:53:10 +0200

I do not want to get too deep into the WG deliberations as to what they
want to do w.r.t the IPR claims. But...

<AD hat on>
First, I would like to remind EVERYONE who participates (that is if you
are subscribed to the mailing list, of which we have records) and who knows
about IPR, that you MUST disclose such information according to IETF
participation rules. See the NOTE WELL that you all MUST have received.
I can post it here again if people want me to. 
<AD hat off>

Sooner is better than later. We better have ALL the IPR claims and disclosures
on the table when we (as a WG) talk about this.

Inline..

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On
> Behalf Of Pat Calhoun [[email-masked]]
> Sent: Monday, September 19, 2005 03:48
> To: James Kempf; Ted Lemon
> Cc: Darren Loher; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [Capwap] RE: IPR issues
> 
> 
> That is correct, James. LWAPP is royalty free, while the others (SLAPP,
> CTP, WiCOP) are under RAND terms.
> 

Maybe I do not understand the above sentence well enough.
I though that we as a WG want to develop a CAPWAP protocol.
It could be that we use one or multiple of the above to pick and choose
from (or use one as a base and merge pieces from the others). So I would
think that whatever IPR there is on some specific technology or method,
that it could or could not apply to the CAPWAP protocol (that still needs
to be defined/specified). We (as a WG) wonder what impacts any IPR
might have on the to-be-developed CAPWAP protocol.

We do not really care too much what the terms and conditions are of any
IPR on LWAPP or SLAPP or CTP or WiCOP. Because I doubt we will end up with
an unmodified spec of one of these, and for sure we will call it CAPWAP
and not any of the current names (or so is/was my perception of the
discussions sofar).

So Pat, what does your above sentence mean in the context of our 
ultimate CAPWAP protocol?

> Folks, while I understand the concerns raised on the list, I would like
> to remind everyone that many technologies developed by IETF (any any SDO
> for that matter) have IPR claims around them. Nonetheless, if these
> technologies address a market need, they end up being very successful.
> 

Such is true. And it is up to THIS WG to decide what they want to do.
One option is to live with whatever IPR claims there are.
Another option is to try and define a protocol that is not impacted
by the (known) IPR claims or disclosures. Will probably take longer,
but that is what it is.

> Further, there is no guarantee that additional IPR claims won't show up
> at a later date. There are many wireless companies that have no
> representation in this working group, and given the protocol
> independence objective of CAPWAP, I wouldn't be surprised if additional
> IPR is identified at a later date.
> 
Such is true too, but PLEASE everyone look at the NOTE WELL.
You MUST disclose if you know about IPR for the technology that we are 
trying to develop a protocol for.

... snip ..

> 
> Pat Calhoun
> CTO, Wireless Networking Business Unit
> Cisco Systems
> 

Bert Wijnen
_______________________________________________
Capwap mailing list
[email-masked]
http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap