Subject: [nemo] FW: [nemo-base-dt] IPRs on base solution

From: "T.J. Kniveton" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 13:05:29 -0700

------ Forwarded Message
From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2003 10:58:03 +0200
To: "T.J. Kniveton" <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [nemo-base-dt] IPRs on base solution

Hello TJ, thank you for the update.

> I know there are a lot of concerns about IPR, and it is hard to be
> totally sure what the situation is.

Exactly, that fits my view too; it is hard for me to find out what the
best practice at IETF is.

Please allow me to take one possible aspect of the situation.  I'm not
claiming that this is covering entirely the IPR issues, it is just one
possibility.  I've heard some people at IETF saying that WG's and the
IESG are trying to stay away from anything that is "encumbered". (more
specifically, a Mobile IP WG co-chair wrote in private; at last manet WG
meeting an IESG member said that people in IESG are trying to
avoid "encumbered" drafts; and a Mobile IP WG member who wrote on the
list saying he doesn't "want to become a lawyer" when I suggested him
that defensive IPR's are probably not very bad).

So that resumes my understanding of one possible aspect of how IPR and
IETF.  It might very well be that my interpretation is wrong, and I'm in
no position to make knowledgeable claims.

So, if I take that reasoning, may I...

> IPR that would apply to a basic mobile router solution, as was
> disclosed when the draft was submitted.

May I ask what parts of the draft would fit perfectly in the most
important claims of the IPR document.

For example, would the echo req/rep technique be protected by the claims
in that IPR?  If yes, then that is very good news, because I think we
previously discussed that it is not that relevant for the base solution,
so that IPR claim would not harm at all.

Overall, _if_ existing IPR on a draft represents a problem for that
draft's advancement, maybe identifying which part of the draft is
protected and re-writing it, might be a good solution.

If, on the other hand, it is acknowledged that defensive IPR's on a
draft is ok, then no need to get rid of that IPR.

Thanks,

Alex

------ End of Forwarded Message

---

From: "T.J. Kniveton" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 13:05:29 -0700

------ Forwarded Message

Thanks,

Alex