Subject: IPR discussion: draft-ietf-tsvwg-rsvp-security-groupkeying

From: Gorry Fairhurst <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2011 10:45:06 +0100

The draft above is now in Last Call, and there needs to now be a 
discussion within TSVWG relating to the acceptability of the IPR terms 
for this document.

There is an IPR statement filed:
ID # 988 "Cisco's Statement about IPR claimed in 
draft-ietf-tsvwg-rsvp-security-groupkeying-01.txt"

This seems to provide RAND terms for compliance to a standard, but this 
I-D is not being submitted as a standards-track document. The terms in 
the IPR declaration do not seem to provide non-assert status for 
implementing an Informational document. Please can the WG discuss this?

* Specifically, do other options exist that would not introduce this IPR 
dependence?

* Have these options been explored?

* What does the WG recommend? (We can discuss this further in the WG 
meeting next week).

Best wishes,

Gorry Fairhurst

TSVWG Chair

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2011 10:31:21 +0100

Thanks Gorry,

For those too tired to follow the links, the disclosure is at
http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/988/

Personally (no hats being worn - consequent risk of sunstroke) I find the text
of the disclosure a little disappointing. As you point out, the reference to
"inclusion in a standard" is unclear both for this Informational document, and
for any Standards Track document. What if I implement a PS or DS?

I also find the lack of references for the "one or more pending unpublished
patent applications" unfortunate. The vagueness is such that it might even be
the case that it some feature (such as IPSec) that is covered rather than group
keying.

This leads me to say that I am unable to assess whether it would be harmful to
proceed with this document in the light of the disclosure. But I would observe
that this is an informational document that does not make any changes to the
base protocols. That is, the presence of this document will not require
implementations to conform to it. Thus, it is probably safe to proceed with its
publication.

Adrian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
> Gorry Fairhurst
> Sent: 23 July 2011 10:45
> To: tsvwg WG
> Subject: IPR discussion: draft-ietf-tsvwg-rsvp-security-groupkeying
> 
>

---

From: "t.petch" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2011 20:57:07 +0200

---- Original Message -----
From: "Gorry Fairhurst" <[email-masked]>
To: "tsvwg WG" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2011 11:45 AM
> implementing an Informational document. Please can the WG discuss this?

I think that you are reading too much into the IPR claim, which is probably
written by a lawyer whose use of terms means what (s)he wants them to mean and
has no relationship to their usage by other people such as the IETF.

I suggest that the editors of this I-D contact the e-mail addresses in the IPR
claim and ask for clarification as the meaning of the word 'standard', whether
the term is being using in the IETF sense, and so excluding BCP, Experimental
etc of whether it is being used in another sense and so, for example,
encompassing any document that the IETF produces as part of the RFC series.

Tom Petch