Subject: RE: [Capwap] Poll for LWAPP as the basis for the CAPWAP protocol

From: "Puneet Agarwal" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 10:29:54 -0800

I supported LWAPP as a base protocol. However, in light of Pekka's
comment (about RAND being insufficient for open source and free
software), it seems that the group members should really reconsider the
IPR terms for the base CAPWAP protocol.

It would also help if IETF (WG chairs/AD etc) itself makes a statement
about IETF's commitment (or not) to open source (and the requisite
licensing terms). Maybe it is time for IETF itself to modify/strengthen
it's requirement for IPR. Not all of us are conversant in the licensing
requirements for open-source/free-software.

Pekka: What licensing terms are the minimal requirements for
open-source/free software?

Thanks.

-Puneet

-----Original Message-----
From: Pekka Savola [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2005 12:07 PM
To: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions
Subject: RE: [Capwap] Poll for LWAPP as the basis for the CAPWAP
protocol

On Wed, 16 Nov 2005, Agcaoili, Philip wrote:
> NO:   LWAPP should not be the basis of the CAPWAP protocol.

I don't know why I'm getting these mails (maybe the list configuration
changed, because I was just on a whilelist before), but in any case...

NO: a simple "RAND" license is insufficient for open-source and free
software communities.  We should not decide on the protocol before these
are decided; if we do, our "lever" to the IPR holders may diminish.

B.t.w., the WG charter page's mailing-list archive URL is broken.

> -----Original Message-----
> At 2005/10/28 16:12, [email-masked] wrote:
>
>> After many weeks of discussion on the CAPWAP evaluation draft 
>> completed by the eval team its time to poll the WG on the protocol
consensus.
>> The evaluation team concluded that LWAPP is the most complete 
>> proposal and should be used as the basis for the CAPWAP protocol
going forward.
>>
>> Please respond to this email indicating support for LWAPP as the new 
>> CAPWAP protocol:
>>         YES:  LWAPP should be the basis of the CAPWAP protocol or,
>>         NO:   LWAPP should not be the basis of the CAPWAP protocol.
>>
>> The evaluation has also raised a number of recommendation that should
be
>> address by the WG on top of the protocol recommendation.   These will
be
>> addressed by the WG and applied to the protocol that achieves WG 
>> consensus.  In order to progress the work, we are separating the 
>> Evaluation's team proposal so that we agree first on the protcol, and

>> then evaluate each recommendation separately.
>>
>> Please submit your response to this protocol poll by Friday, November
>> 4th.   We will discuss the results of the poll at the face to face
>> CAPWAP WG meeting on Monday, November 7th.
>>
>> Best Regards,
>> Dorothy and Mani
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Capwap mailing list
>> [email-masked]
>> http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit:
> http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/options/capwap/philip.agcaoili%40sci
> atl.co
> m
>
>
>     - - - - - - -  Appended by Scientific-Atlanta, Inc.  - - - - - - -

> This e-mail and any attachments may contain information which is
confidential, proprietary, privileged or otherwise protected by law. The
information is solely intended for the named addressee (or a person
responsible for delivering it to the addressee). If you are not the
intended recipient of this message, you are not authorized to read,
print, retain, copy or disseminate this message or any part of it. If
you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender
immediately by return e-mail and delete it from your computer.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
_________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit:
http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap

_________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit:
http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 20:45:15 +0200 (EET)

> open-source/free software?

I cannot speak for the open-source/free software communities, but I 
think the following summarizes the two key requirements here:
http://www.kame.net/newsletter/20040525/

That is,
  - no price tag
  - not require negotiating a license per implementer/user

One additional thing that sometimes floats around is "defensive-only 
IPR", allowing the use of a technology for free and/or without a 
license as long as you don't sue the licensor for anything they've 
done.  I do not know how well these are received by OSS/FSF 
communities with/without the above two requirements.

HTH,