Subject: [netlmm] PMIPv6 and IPR

From: "Narayanan, Vidya" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 19:43:56 -0800

All,
I would like to remind people to disclose any IPR relevant to any drafts
that are candidate solutions for PMIPv6 in the NETLMM working group.
Please do the appropriate disclosures needed in accordance with the IETF
IPR policies (RFC 3979). 

I would also like to remind the WG participants about an already filed
disclosure on draft-sgundave-mipv6-proxymipv6-00 - it can be found at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/ipr_detail_show.cgi?ipr_id=756. 

Thanks,
The Chairs

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

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2007 14:22:16 +0100

on 2007-01-20 04:43 Narayanan, Vidya said the following:
...
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/ipr_detail_show.cgi?ipr_id=756. 

And there's more:

http://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/jak-3rd-party-ipr-draft-sgudave-mip6-proxymip6.txt
(linked from https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/ipr_detail_show.cgi?&ipr_id=766)

	Henrik

---

From: "Templin, Fred L" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 10:25:56 -0800

> https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/ipr_detail_show.cgi?ipr_id=756.

Can someone please explain what this means to those
of us who had not previously seen this issue raised,
e.g., did those who voted at IETF67 and here on the
list know about the IPRs beforehand?

Thanks - Fred
[email-masked]

---

From: "Narayanan, Vidya" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 13:19:58 -0800

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Henrik Levkowetz [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Saturday, January 20, 2007 5:22 AM
> To: Narayanan, Vidya
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [netlmm] PMIPv6 and IPR
> 
> 
> 
> (linked from 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/ipr_detail_show.cgi?&ipr_id=766)
> 
> 

Thanks for pointing this out. I would, however, note that this is a
third party statement about possible IPR in this space. The first IPR
noted there is the one that has been disclosed (the link attached in my
original email). Among the rest, we have verified most of those with the
concerning parties to conclude that those do not apply to any of the
PMIPv6 drafts that are being discussed here. In particular, there is one
that has not been verified (US20060182104A1). But, the posting notes
that this is described for the MIP4 architecture in the WLAN context. 

Vidya

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 00:56:13 +0100

on 2007-01-22 22:19 Narayanan, Vidya said the following:
...
> that this is described for the MIP4 architecture in the WLAN context. 

*Please* be more specific: Who are the 'we' you refer to?

I've looked these over myself, and it's not at all clear to me that they
don't apply.

	Henrik

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 17:21:51 +0100

Narayanan, Vidya wrote:
> PMIPv6 drafts that are being discussed here.

I share your thoughts and potential intent.  But I would avoid 
qualifyiers such as 'most', 'apply' or 'doesn't apply', because of the 
risk of being taken seriously by a lawyer :-)

I agree with you that we should discuss about IPR issues early, and now 
is a good time.

But we can raise the level of awareness and distinguish ways of moving 
forward.  It's not by words 'apply' or 'doesn't apply' that we move 
forward but by potential intent towards RAND/RF status and potential 
group acceptance of that, and potentially design new workaround (which 
could be old actually) and so on, or 
informational/experimental/stdstrack decisions etc.

Alex

---

From: Sri Gundavelli <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 09:09:45 -0800 (PST)

Don't want to get into IPR discussions, that not my
job. General comments:

- The mere usage of the keyword "proxy" or the usage of
   RFC-3775 MIPV6 messages, do not make any draft more
   vulnerable to IPR claims, than to those drafts that use
   a different title or a different transport layer protocol.

- If there is a valid claim on a network based mobility
   solution, broadly, it cannot exclusively apply to
   draft-sgundave. All other drafts address the same
   *exact* network based mobility problem.

Regards
Sri

On Mon, 22 Jan 2007, Narayanan, Vidya wrote:

---

From: "Narayanan, Vidya" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 17:14:09 -0800

It appears that my email has caused some confusion in interpretation.
Perhaps I didn't clarify adequately. What I meant to say that we (I
believe James did and I did on some of the disclosures) asked the
inventors or WG members that work for the organizations listed as
assignees on the IPR to either disclose IPR or confirm that it doesn't
apply and they confirmed the latter. It is not implying any
intepretation of anyone else on the topic. I will clarify this on the
list, as it seems to have caused confusion. There was one IPR that I
mentioned has not been checked with the inventors or the assignee.  

I am checking on what else may need to be done to ensure we get past
this and get some public statements directly from the concerned parties.
I apologize for any unintentional miscommunication. 

Thanks,
Vidya

> Sent: Monday, January 22, 2007 3:56 PM
> To: Narayanan, Vidya
> Cc: [email-masked]
> > noted there is the one that has been disclosed (the link 
> attached in 
> > my original email). Among the rest, we have verified most of those 
> > with the concerning parties to conclude that those do not 
> apply to any 
> > of the
> > PMIPv6 drafts that are being discussed here. In particular, 
> there is 
> > one that has not been verified (US20060182104A1). But, the posting 
> > notes that this is described for the MIP4 architecture in 
> the WLAN context.
> 
> I've looked these over myself, and it's not at all clear to 
> me that they don't apply.
> 
> 
> 	Henrik
>