Hey Curtis, Missed this thread, but had I seen it I would have noted that draft-lee-ccamp-rsvp-te-exclude-route-00 was posted in May 2002, and the poorly-named draft-lee-rsvp-te-exclude-route was posted in March 2002.
Cheers, Adrian > -----Original Message----- > From: Curtis Villamizar [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: 20 June 2012 20:02 > 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.ne > t> > "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&r > ecNum=1&docAn=IB2009007467&queryString=FP:%28PCT/IB2009/007467%29&m > axRec=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
