Curtis: No, if that discussion has happened, it didn't take place in the rtgwg list.
Quoting from rfc3979 (IP in IETF Technology): "... Although the IETF can make no actual determination of validity, enforceability or applicability of any particular IPR claim, it is reasonable that a working group will take into account on their own opinions of the validity, enforceability or applicability of Intellectual Property Rights in their evaluation..." I am not a lawyer either, but it is clear to me that any discussion we (IETF/rtgwg) could have would obviously be non-binding. It is not in our domain to determine what is or not prior art. Having said that, I would imagine (as a member of the WG) that the authors have a clear picture of what is prior art and why some technologies may not be. Again, not something for us to evaluate...but information that may be useful in forming individual opinions. Alvaro. > -----Original Message----- > From: Curtis Villamizar [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2012 3:02 PM > To: Retana, Alvaro > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected]; White, Russell; > [email protected] > Subject: Re: IPR Disclosure: Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (publ)'s > Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-rtgwg-mrt-frr-architecture-01 > > > Alvaro, > > Please remind me. Has there been any discussion as to whether the XRO > (exclude route object) in RSVP-TE (RFC 4874) would qualify as prior > art, since the XRO specifies a "system and method of implementing a > lightweight not-via fast reroute in a telecommunications network"? > The patent seems to be a method patent and not a use patent. It > appears to me that the only major difference between the XRO and the > Ericson patent (which may affect not-via and use of redundant trees of > which maximally redundant would be a subset), is that XRO is applied > to RSVP-TE and was intended to aid in multi-domain use of RSVP-TE and > the Ericson patent uses a functionally identical approach (indicate > which resources to avoid) applied to IP rather than RSVP-TE. > > The XRO was introduced in draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-exclude-route-00 in > June 2003 which became an RFC in 2007. The patent was submitted in > 2006, three years after XRO publication (not counting individual > submissions prior to the first WG draft). If this counts as prior > art, the patent is invalid. > > I'm not sure how this could affect MRT but not affect the notvia work > (no IPR disclosure from Ericson on that). The > draft-bryant-shand-ipfrr-notvia-addresses-00 individual submission was > published in March 2005. This also precedes the patent. > > The only reason I can see that notvia and XRO might be considered > different is that they don't specify a redundant tree. > > Another question for legal types is whether computing redundant trees > is an algorithm (specifically a graph theory algorithm) and therefore > not patentable at all. Should a patent of this type specify the use > of a redundant tree algorithm in IP or LDP? Can a patent apply to the > use of *any* algorithm which falls within the classification of a > redundant tree algorithm in IP or LDP? > > Of course, I am not an attorney so I cannot give a legal opinion on > this matter or any other legal matter. I am asking if there has ever > been such a discussion and whether my layperson legally uniformed > opinion might by chance be accurate or close to accurate. > > If the patent is valid, does apply to the MRT work, and has no > licensing specified, IMHO the WG should cease to work on this. > > Curtis > > > In message > <c03aaf38ad209f4bb02bc0a34b774ce7060...@g2w2446.americas.hpqcorp.net> > "Retana, Alvaro" writes: > > As a reminder, having an IPR claim does not disqualify a draft from > advancing in the IETF, being adopted by a working group or from > eventually becoming a standard. It just represents one more item to be > considered by the working group. > > http://www.ietf.org/ipr/policy.html > > To help in the evaluation, the following link is to the patent > application itself (provided by the authors): > > http://www.wipo.int/patentscope/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2010055408 > &recNum=1&docAn=IB2009007467&queryString=FP:%28PCT/IB2009/007467%29&max > Rec=1 > > > As a chair, my job is to remind the WG of the IETF policy -- the > decision of whether we should continue to work on this item is to be > made by the individuals participating in the WG. Because the concern > expressed by Curtis has come up several times (from different people), > including at the meeting in Taipei, I would like to hear other opinions > specific to the impact of the terms of the IPR filing with respect to > the architecture proposed. > > Thanks! > > Alvaro. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On > Behalf > > Of Curtis Villamizar > > Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2012 11:53 AM > > To: [email protected]; [email protected]; > > [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; > > [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; > > [email protected]; [email protected] > > Cc: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: IPR Disclosure: Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (publ)'s > > Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-rtgwg-mrt-frr-architecture- > 01 > > > > > > In message <[email protected]> > > IETF Secretariat writes: > > > > > > > > Dear Gabor Sandor Envedi, Alia Atlas, Robert Kebler, Andras > Csaszar, > > > Russ White, Mike Shand, Maciek Konstantynowicz: > > > > > > An IPR disclosure that pertains to your Internet-Draft entitled > "An > > > Architecture for IP/LDP Fast-Reroute Using Maximally Redundant > Trees" > > > (draft- ietf-rtgwg-mrt-frr-architecture) was submitted to the IETF > > > Secretariat on 2012-06-18 and has been posted on the "IETF Page of > > > Intellectual Property Rights Disclosures" > > > (https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1801/). The title of the IPR > > > disclosure is "Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (publ)'s Statement > > > about IPR related to draft-ietf-rtgwg-mrt-frr-architecture-01.""); > > > > > > The IETF Secretariat > > > > > > Prior reasons to be hesitant about this work included the rather > > substantial change to routing and forwarding, and the need to deploy > > network wide (no accommodation for legacy equipment). Regardless, it > > became a WG item. > > > > Now that there is an IPR disclosure with no statement at all > regarding > > licensing terms, it might be time to reconsider whether the WG should > > go forward with this work. > > > > IMHO- If the IPR disclosure is not updated with a reasonable and > > non-discriminatory, preferably royalty-free, licensing statement, the > > MRT work should be abandoned by RTGWG. > > > > Curtis > > _______________________________________________ > > rtgwg mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg _______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
