Subject: [Autoconf] IPR on draft-boot-autoconf-brdp

From: Teco Boot <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2010 22:59:16 +0100

The IPR issue on building trees popped up during the Autoconf 
meeting. I can say BRDP is inspired by TD, but have a very 
different target. I checked again the patents in the claim
on RPL.
My opinion is that the patents are NOT applicable to BRDP. This 
because BRDP is NOT about building topologies and NOT about routing.
The patents are.

There is a BRDP related draft on routing: draft-boot-brdp-based-routing.
This is a very different approach than what is described in the patents.
My proposal leaves providing paths to the routing protocol.

Pointers to the RPL IPR topic: 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/roll/current/msg03095.html
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1270/

To repeat Pascal: 1) I'm not a lawyer, and 2) even less your own 
lawyer. If I'm wrong, I expect Cisco takes action.

Even if Cisco claims, I think there is no problem, with the outcome
in ROLL in mind. Also, Cisco was aware of my work from the very
beginning. The IPR issue never raised.

Regards, Teco

---

From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2010 16:05:31 +0100

Hi Teco:

Sorry for not following Autoconf. I'm really interested in the subject
matter but could not fit it in my current bandwidth.

For the subject at hand, Cisco has already provided terms about TD and
RPL, see:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/roll/current/msg03090.html  and
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/720/

My understanding is that the "standard adopted by IETF " in those terms
does not have to be called RPL or TD. Also that in "technology in this
document", the document is the draft, so the terms apply to any Cisco
IPR present in the draft whether it is listed above or not in the
statement. So (still my understanding is that) whatever you might have
borrowed from those should be covered by Cisco's RAND terms. I
understand that you did proper diligence to announce that your document
may borrow from TD and RPL so the group is aware of the existence of the
both IPR and the terms. It does not hurt some times so repeat this to
make sure that new comers are also aware of that IPR, so then again
you're making proper diligence here and I thank you for that.

Then again for all: 1) I'm not a lawyer, and 2) even less your own
lawyer. So I will not assert whether the Cisco IPR included in RPL or TD
applies or not to BRDP. You know it is very slippery ground for us
engineers, in particular because the method might count more than the
goal for which a patent is filed. If you need Cisco to provide a RAND
statement on your draft, then Dan is certainly the right person. My
understanding is that this is only needed if you have technology in the
BRDP draft that is not in either the TD or RPL draft and still has Cisco
IPR on it. For my best knowledge there is no such thing, but I can dig
in the latest version within reasonable time if you think that might be
the case.

Cheers,

Pascal

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Teco Boot [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Friday, March 26, 2010 2:59 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: Pascal Thubert (pthubert); Dan Lang (dlang); standards-ipr(mailer
list)
> Subject: IPR on draft-boot-autoconf-brdp
> 
> The IPR issue on building trees popped up during the Autoconf meeting.
I can
> say BRDP is inspired by TD, but have a very different target. I
checked again
> the patents in the claim on RPL.
because
> BRDP is NOT about building topologies and NOT about routing.
> The patents are.
> 
lawyer. If I'm
> wrong, I expect Cisco takes action.
> 
> Even if Cisco claims, I think there is no problem, with the outcome in
ROLL in
> mind. Also, Cisco was aware of my work from the very beginning. The
IPR
> issue never raised.