Subject: [dhcwg] dhc WG last call on draft-ietf-dhc-subnet-alloc-04

From: Ralph Droms <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 10:25:41 -0500

This message announces a WG last call on "Subnet Allocation Option"
<draft-ietf-dhc-subnet-alloc-04.txt>.  The last call will conclude at
0900EST on March 12, 2007.

Please respond to this WG last call.  If you support acceptance of the
document without change, respond with a simple acknowledgment, so that
support for the document can be assessed.  Lack of discussion does not
represent positive support.  If there is no expression of support for
acceptance during the WG last call, the document will not be advanced
to the IESG.

draft-ietf-dhc-subnet-alloc-04 defines a DHCP option that is passed
between the DHCP Client and the DHCP Server to request dynamic
allocation of a subnet, give specifications of subnet(s) allocated,
and report usage statistics.  This memo documents the current
definition of this option (option code 220) in agreement with
RFC-3942, which declares that any pre-existing usages of option
numbers in the range 128 - 223 should be documented and the working
group will try to officially assign those numbers to those options.

Note that the Internet Draft <draft-shen-dhc-block-alloc-03>, "DHCP
Proxy Server Micro-block Allocation Scheme For IP Address Pool
Management," defines an address allocation mechanism that is related
to the subnet allocation mechanism in draft-ietf-dhc-subnet-alloc-04.

This draft is available as
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dhc-subnet-alloc-04.txt

- Stig Venaas, Ralph Droms
  dhc WG chairs

_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg

---

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 08:45:39 -0500

How would this document be published? Standards Track? Or
Informational?

FWIW, since this is just documenting a vendor-defined existing
practice, one that the IETF presumably can't modify, I'd assume the
document would be published as an informational one, unless the WG
felt fairly strongly that this document really is the right/best way
to address the problem at hand (i.e., with IETF blessing).

Thomas

---

From: "Templin, Fred L" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 09:09:57 -0800

I have asked in the past about IPR considerations for this document.
If this is indeed just documenting a vendor's proprietary extension,
what are the IPR consideration for its use in other contexts, i.e.,
how much is it going to cost all the rest of us?

Fred
[email-masked] 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Narten [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 5:46 AM
> To: Ralph Droms
> Cc: dhcwg
> Subject: Re: [dhcwg] dhc WG last call on 
> draft-ietf-dhc-subnet-alloc-04 
>

---

From: Ralph Droms <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 14:22:32 -0500

Fred - the IETF manages an IPR Disclosures page at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/ipr_disclosure.cgi.  There, you can find
the specific disclosure(s) that apply to a specific Internet Draft.

In general, these IPR disclosures give contact information and the specific
text for the disclosure.  In the case of draft-ietf-dhc-subnet-alloc-04 ,
the disclosure text is at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/CISCO-raj-dhc-subnet-alloc.txt

For more information about how this particular disclosure relates to IETF
policies, look at RFC 3979.

I don't mean to dodge the meat of your question: "how much is it going to
cost all the rest of us?"  I don't have responsibility for Cisco's IPR, so I
can't answer that question.

-Ralph

---

From: Ralph Droms <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 08:07:22 -0500

Fred - the IPR disclosure for draft-ietf-dhc-subnet-alloc-04 is very old (it
actually references draft-johnson-dhc-subnet-alloc-00).  A new IPR
disclosure has been submitted to the IETF for "Subnet Allocation Option"
<draft-ietf-dhc-subnet-alloc-04.txt>.  This new IPR disclosure, which has
been Cisco's standard IPR disclosure for at least a year and which I've
included below, explicitly describes for draft-ietf-dhc-subnet-alloc-04 what
has been Cisco's unstated policy regarding licensing terms.

- Ralph

  Cisco is the owner of US Patent No. 7,051,089 relating to the
  subject matter of "Subnet Allocation Option"
  <draft-ietf-dhc-subnet-alloc-04.txt>.

  If technology in this document is included in a standard adopted by
  IETF and any claims of any Cisco patents are necessary for
  practicing the standard, any party will have the right to use any
  such patent claims under reasonable, non-discriminatory terms, with
  reciprocity, to implement and fully comply with the standard.

  The reasonable non-discriminatory terms are:

  If this standard is adopted, Cisco will not assert any patents owned
  or controlled by Cisco against any party for making, using, selling,
  importing or offering for sale a product that implements the
  standard, provided, however that Cisco retains the right to assert
  its patents (including the right to claim past royalties) against
  any party that asserts a patent it owns or controls (either directly
  or indirectly) against Cisco or any of Cisco's affiliates or
  successors in title or against any products of Cisco or any products
  of any of Cisco's affiliates either alone or in combination with
  other products; and Cisco retains the right to assert its patents
  against any product or portion thereof that is not necessary for
  compliance with the standard.

  Royalty-bearing licenses will be available to anyone who prefers
  that option.

  For information contact:

  Dan Lang
  Senior IP Counsel
  Cisco Systems
  408-526-6672
  [email-masked]

---

From: "Templin, Fred L" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 06:26:00 -0800

Ralph,

I'll have to get out my microscope and study the new statement
more carefully, but I have to go back to something Thomas asked
earlier; when cisco says: "in a *standard* adopted by the IETF"
are they meaning to include Informational-track documents, or
only Standards-track? And, if it is the latter, aren't we all in
a "darned-if-you-do and darned-if-you-don't" situation in terms
of voting for this thing as an informational-track document?

I'm already operating well outside the bounds of my understanding
of legal matters here, so I'll relax now...

Fred

> From: Ralph Droms [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 5:07 AM
> To: Templin, Fred L
> Cc: dhcwg; Thomas Narten
> <draft-ietf-dhc-subnet-alloc-04.txt>.  This new IFrom [email-masked] Wed Feb 28 09:26:34 2007
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Subject: RE: [dhcwg] dhc WG last call on draft-ietf-dhc-subnet-alloc-04 
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 06:26:00 -0800
From: "Templin, Fred L" <[email-masked]>
To: "Ralph Droms" <[email-masked]>
Cc: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>, dhcwg <[email-masked]>

Ralph,

I'll have to get out my microscope and study the new statement
more carefully, but I have to go back to something Thomas asked
earlier; when cisco says: "in a *standard* adopted by the IETF"
are they meaning to include Informational-track documents, or
only Standards-track? And, if it is the latter, aren't we all in
a "darned-if-you-do and darned-if-you-don't" situation in terms
of voting for this thing as an informational-track document?

I'm already operating well outside the bounds of my understanding
of legal matters here, so I'll relax now...

Fred

> From: Ralph Droms [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 5:07 AM
> To: Templin, Fred L
> Cc: dhcwg; Thomas Narten