Subject: Re: [CDNi] IPR Disclosure Koninklijke KPN N.V.'s Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-cdni-uri-signing

From: Phil Sorber <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 21:50:32 +0000

On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 2:19 PM IETF Secretariat <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Dear Kent Leung, Francois Le Faucheur, Ray van Brandenburg, Bill Downey,
> Michel Fisher:
>
>
> An IPR disclosure that pertains to your Internet-Draft entitled "URI
> Signing for CDN Interconnection (CDNI)" (draft-ietf-cdni-uri-signing) was
> submitted to the IETF Secretariat on  and has been posted on the "IETF
> Page of
> Intellectual Property Rights Disclosures"
> (https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2603/). The title of the IPR disclosure
> is
> "Koninklijke KPN N.V.'s Statement about IPR related to
> draft-ietf-cdni-uri-signing"
>
>
> Thank you
>
> IETF Secretariat
>
> _______________________________________________
> CDNi mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cdni

I was asked to look into this at the WG meeting at IETF 93. I want to start
off by saying I am not a lawyer and have little experience with patents,
but I do work on a CDN and have implemented a plugin similar to this draft.

As far as I can tell, it seems this patent conflicts with Section 5.4 of
version 04 of the draft (
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-cdni-uri-signing-04#section-5.4),
the chaining of signed tokens. Some of the other additions to the 04
version of the draft, for example the path pattern, are there to support
the chained tokens, but do not seem to infringe on the patent.

After the WG meeting I spoke with Ray and some others in the hallway about
how we could approach this. I think we'd like to try to come up with an
alternative to the chaining that is covered in the patent, if at all
possible. If not, perhaps we could retain all the other aspects of the
segmented video support as-is, but do the chaining in a separate document.

Thanks.