Subject: RE: [Capwap] IPR issues

From: "Changming Liu" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2005 09:40:10 -0700

Troy,

It was me who started this discussion although Pat and Dan carried it
much further :-). It has been very helpful for me to watch this email
conversation. This is not to take any credit but want one of my trivial
questions to be answered by Pat. Please see attached email.

Changming

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
Behalf Of Troy Dixler
Sent: Saturday, September 03, 2005 5:52 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [Capwap] IPR issues

The specific thread I'm referring to has been referenced below.  The
language that is in this thread needs to be addressed.  I equally read
the
IPR notice that was sent up. We as a working group need to understand
exactly what is in this patent application and engineer around it. I am
not
going to find myself in the scenario that Dan spelled out and Pat did
not
expressly clarify. 

The IPR claim to Airespace/Cisco has been placed here and does not give
us
the information necessary to know specifically what within LWAPP is
being
claimed.
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/airespace-ipr-draft-calhoun-seamoby-lwapp.t
xt

Additionally the thread is below between Dan and Pat that sparked this
initial E-mail to the list.

>   Pat,
> 
>   If LWAPP were to become a draft standard it sounds like Cisco would
> be able to use other companies IPR on things (like accurate location
> determination or rogue detection or ...) without license and if that
> company tried to stop Cisco then Cisco would bring out the LWAPP club.
> Then they either swap licenses, the company gets no benefit from
> their IPR, or the unfortunate company pays to implement a standard.
> 
>   So it looks like if everybody has to implement LWAPP because it was
> the draft standard then they'd have to give up some part of their
patent
> portfolio to Cisco if they try to assert any of it. I don't think that
> sounds like a very good deal.
> 
>   Perhaps you could explain _exactly_ what parts of LWAPP you think
> are covered by your pending applications so that we make sure none of
> that is in the final CAPWAP spec.
> 
>   Dan.
> 
> 
> On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 07:30:15 PDT you wrote
> > The royalty free license would extend only to those who do not
assert
> > against the systems that utilize LWAPP whether or not their
assertions
> > relate to LWAPP itself. The prior IPR statement carries on through
> > Cisco.
> >
> > Pat Calhoun
> > CTO, Wireless Networking Business Unit
> > Cisco Systems

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

Subject: RE: [Capwap] Exisiting Implementation(s) for Submitted CAPWAP Proposals
From: "Changming Liu" <[email-masked]>
To: "Darren Loher" <[email-masked]>, "Cheng Hong" <[email-masked]>, "Gopal Dommety" <[email-masked]>, "Mani, Mahalingam \(Mahalingam\)" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 23:04:41 -0700
List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions <capwap.frascone.com>

Darren,
 
Thanks for the info. Just took a quick look at the Airespace's Statement
about IPR and found a statement below: 
 
"Airespace hereby covenants that it will not assert any patent
claims contained in any of the above-identified pending patent
applications (if and when issued as a Patent) against any party that
makes, uses, sells, imports, or offers for sale, an implementation of
the LWAPP protocol as specified in the Specification, assuming it is
adopted."

I have a trivial question: What does "adopted" mean? Does it mean when
it is selected by the eval team as the "chosen one", when it becomes an
experimental standard or when it becomes a full standard? If the last
one is the case, how can other vendors implement it so that two or more
interoperable copies can be implemented to meet RFC2026's requirement?  

Pat, do you mind elaborating it a bit more? 

Thanks.

Changming

________________________________

From: Darren Loher [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2005 4:49 PM
To: Changming Liu; Cheng Hong; Gopal Dommety; Mani, Mahalingam
(Mahalingam)
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [Capwap] Exisiting Implementation(s) for Submitted CAPWAP
Proposals

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