Subject: Re: [Cfrg] Request For Comments: OCB Internet-Draft

From: David McGrew <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2011 05:51:31 -0700

Hi Ted,

On Jul 13, 2011, at 9:42 AM, Ted Krovetz wrote:

>
> There are several patents that may apply to OCB. We are in the  
> process of trying to get all parties to pool their patents and  
> liberalize their use.
>
>

I saw that Phil sent in IPR terms on OCB, at https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1591/ 
    Thanks to you and Phil for taking care of this.

Unfortunately, this doesn't settle all of the open issues, because all  
of the patents that are mentioned in that IPR disclosure are held by  
Phil.  Are you aware of plans to post disclosures regarding the IPR of  
the other parties that you mention (I would assume that is Gligor and  
Donescu, and IBM, who are mentioned on Phil's OCB FAQ page)?

I would certainly understand if Phil didn't want to make an IPR  
statement on behalf of another holder of potentially essential IPR.  I  
think the right thing to do would be to point out the draft and the  
IETF IPR process to the other parties, and let them make whatever  
statements they think are suitable.  If you don't feel comfortable  
doing this, I offer to do it on your behalf.

As CFRG chair, it is my responsibility to make sure that all of the  
relevant IPR gets disclosed.  (The IETF goal is to have all IPR out on  
the table before a draft is sponsored to progress to an RFC, see draft- 
polk-ipr-disclosure-00.)   I would rather be spending my time on  
technical issues, and I'm sure that you feel the same way, but we do  
need to make sure that the IPR issues get handled.

thanks,

David