Subject: [dhcwg] IPR claims for <draft-ietf-dhc-subscriber-id-05.txt>

From: Ralph Droms <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 11:39:10 -0500

The WG should be aware of the following notice of IPR claims related to
'DHCP Subscriber ID Suboption for the DHCP Relay Agent Option'
<draft-ietf-dhc-subscriber-id-05.txt>.  The IPR claims are documented in
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/PacketFront-IPR.txt

- Ralph

------- Forwarded Message

From: "Fredrik Nyman" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
CC: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 14:17:00 +0100
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Last Call: 'DHCP Subscriber ID Suboption for the DHCP 
Relay Agent Option' to Proposed Standard
Reply-to: [email-masked]

On 20 Jan 2004 at 10:46, The IESG wrote:

 > The IESG has received a request from the Dynamic Host Configuration WG to
 > consider the following document:
 >
 > - 'DHCP Subscriber ID Suboption for the DHCP Relay Agent Option'
 >    <draft-ietf-dhc-subscriber-id-05.txt> as a Proposed Standard
 >
 > The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
 > final comments on this action.  Please send any comments to the
 > [email-masked] or [email-masked] mailing lists by 2004-02-03.

Please note that PacketFront has IPR claims related to this draft. If
this draft becomes a proposed standard, please ensure that the
appropriate notes are included in the final document. Thank you.

--
Fredrik Nyman
PacketFront Sweden AB
http://www.packetfront.com/

------- End of Forwarded Message 

_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 11:17:25 -0600

This is really unfortunate.   I think the right thing to do at this 
point is for the WG to put these two drafts on hold (that is, remove 
them from consideration and put tombstones on them on the IETF FTP 
site) until this patent issue is resolved.  Otherwise we're laying a 
trap for people who might be tempted to implement this and might later 
get sued by PacketFront for patent infringement.

It would be interesting to hear what the folks at Cisco have to say 
about this.   Sigh.

---

From: "Steve Gonczi" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 13:03:20 -0500

I second Ted's motion. 

I find it especially troublesome that these claims are disclosed
relatively late in the game.

My personal preference would be not to put any time/effort into 
reviewing any draft with attached IPR claims.

/sG

PS. The opinions voiced here are mine. 
My employer has nothing to do with it.

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Ted
Lemon
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2004 12:17 PM
To: Ralph Droms
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] IPR claims for
<draft-ietf-dhc-subscriber-id-05.txt>

>site) until this patent issue is resolved.

---

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 15:57:44 -0500

> relatively late in the game.

Technically, they were disclosed in April 2003 when the notice went up
on the IETF Web page. Not sure if this is what you mean by
"late". Clearly, the WG should have been notified as well, but that
apparently didn't happen.

Another process point that the disclosure doesn't address is what the
licensing terms will be. Per 2026bis, the following should take place:

   (C)  Where Intellectual Property Rights have been disclosed for IETF
      Documents as provided in Section 6 of this document, the IETF
      Executive Director shall request from the discloser of such IPR, a
      written assurance that upon approval by the IESG for publication
      as RFCs of the relevant IETF specification(s), all persons will be
      able to obtain the  right to implement, use, distribute and
      exercise other rights with respect to Implementing Technology
      under one of the licensing options specified in Section 6.5 below
      unless such a statement has already been submitted.  The working
      group proposing the use of the technology with respect to which
      the Intellectual Property Rights are disclosed may assist the IETF
      Executive Director in this effort.

      The results of this procedure shall not, in themselves, block
      publication of an IETF Document or advancement of an IETF Document
      along the standards track.  A working group may take into
      consideration the results of this procedure in evaluating the
      technology, and the IESG may defer approval when a delay may
      facilitate obtaining such assurances.  The results will, however,
      be recorded by the IETF Executive Director, and be made available
      online.

I do not know if the Secretariat has made such a request; I will go
find out.

Thomas

---

From: Bud Millwood <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 13:56:34 +0100

> I second Ted's motion.

So do we.

- Bud

Bud Millwood
Weird Solutions, Inc.
http://www.weird-solutions.com
tel: +46 8 758 3700
fax: +46 8 758 3687
mailto:[email-masked]

---

From: "Barr Hibbs" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 16:59:54 -0800

the timing is a bit unfortunate, but I agree with Ted that we should put
this draft on hold until the group has had an opportunity to review and
comment on the intellectual property rights claimed by PacketFront.  After
reading the notification referenced below, I find it impossible to tell what
is actually being claimed by PacketFront, as there is no description either
of intellectual property claimed by PacketFront or a description of how this
Internet-Draft infringes on their rights.

My inclination is to dismiss this out of hand as not being patentable as it
is an obvious and trivial extension to prior work, which any well-informed
practitioner could easily have suggested...  but then, I've not spent years
litigating patent claims.

I don't intend to imply that Richard, Theyn, and Mark's work is trivial, but
rather that it seems an obvious extension useful in several circumstances,
hardly the stuff of a patent claim.

Precisely because the proposed sub-option seems generally useful, I hesitate
in suggesting we should place the draft on hold, as this then provides a de
facto mechanism for vendors to halt IETF development of open standards by
claiming unsubstantiated intellectual property rights for almost anything.
Still, until the claimant specifically identifies what element(s) of this
draft infringe on their IPR I think we should not advance this draft.

--Barr

> From: Ralph Droms
> Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2004 08:39
>

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 20:06:20 -0600

> draft infringe on their IPR I think we should not advance this draft.

The particularly bizarre thing about this is that PacketFront sells 
devices that do DHCP, and presumably would like their devices to be 
standards-conformant.   And yet they've done the worst thing they can 
do to assure that - they've asserted ownership over the standard, 
making it impractical for anyone but them to follow it.   To me it 
seems like they are shooting themselves in the feet with large-caliber 
weapons.   But what do I know?