From gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk Fri Jul 22 01:10:20 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rsvp-dir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rsvp-dir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 383E721F86BC for ; Fri, 22 Jul 2011 01:10:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 76kuny9dC6k1 for ; Fri, 22 Jul 2011 01:10:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from erg.abdn.ac.uk (dee.erg.abdn.ac.uk [IPv6:2001:630:241:204:203:baff:fe9a:8c9b]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2340C21F86AE for ; Fri, 22 Jul 2011 01:10:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from Gorry.local (fgrpf.plus.com [212.159.18.54]) (authenticated bits=0) by erg.abdn.ac.uk (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id p6M89oT8027000 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT) for ; Fri, 22 Jul 2011 09:09:50 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <4E29304E.1020001@erg.abdn.ac.uk> Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 09:09:50 +0100 From: Gorry Fairhurst Organization: The University of Aberdeen is a charity registered in Scotland, No SC013683. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:5.0) Gecko/20110624 Thunderbird/5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: rsvp-dir@ietf.org References: <94007F3F05A24CF0AAFA916B42F93E69@davidPC> In-Reply-To: <94007F3F05A24CF0AAFA916B42F93E69@davidPC> X-Forwarded-Message-Id: <94007F3F05A24CF0AAFA916B42F93E69@davidPC> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ERG-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-ERG-MailScanner-From: gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk Subject: [rsvp-dir] Fwd: AD followup: draft-ietf-tsvwg-rsvp-security-groupkeying - IPR discussion X-BeenThere: rsvp-dir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk List-Id: RSVP directorate List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 08:10:20 -0000 RSVP directorate, We can't find any discussion of this in TSVWG, so we'll be looking for comments on how this IPR should be considered for an INFO doc from the WG. Best wishes, Gorry -------- Original Message -------- Subject: AD followup: draft-ietf-tsvwg-rsvp-security-groupkeying Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 02:40:48 -0400 From: David Harrington To: CC: Hi, Has the WG explicitly discussed acceptability of the IPR terms related to this document? The RAND terms apply for compliance to the standard, but this is not being submitted as a standards-track document. The terms in the IPR declaration do not seem to provide non-assert status for implementing an Informational document. Has the WG discussed this? If so, can you provide a link to the relevant thread? David Harrington Director, IETF Transport Area ietfdbh@comcast.net (preferred for ietf) dbharrington@huaweisymantec.com +1 603 828 1401 (cell) From bob.briscoe@bt.com Fri Jul 22 06:02:33 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rsvp-dir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rsvp-dir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5A4021F8515 for ; Fri, 22 Jul 2011 06:02:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.486 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.486 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.113, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NwOFSBEje6fX for ; Fri, 22 Jul 2011 06:02:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp3.smtp.bt.com (smtp3.smtp.bt.com [217.32.164.138]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0F6821F85CA for ; Fri, 22 Jul 2011 06:02:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from i2kc08-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net ([193.113.197.71]) by smtp3.smtp.bt.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Fri, 22 Jul 2011 14:02:31 +0100 Received: from cbibipnt08.iuser.iroot.adidom.com ([147.149.100.81]) by i2kc08-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Fri, 22 Jul 2011 14:02:30 +0100 Received: From bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk ([132.146.168.158]) by cbibipnt08.iuser.iroot.adidom.com (WebShield SMTP v4.5 MR1a P0803.399); id 1311339750230; Fri, 22 Jul 2011 14:02:30 +0100 Received: from MUT.jungle.bt.co.uk ([10.215.131.97]) by bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk (8.13.5/8.12.8) with ESMTP id p6MD2ThI014679; Fri, 22 Jul 2011 14:02:29 +0100 Message-Id: <201107221302.p6MD2ThI014679@bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 14:02:28 +0100 To: From: Bob Briscoe In-Reply-To: <4E29304E.1020001@erg.abdn.ac.uk> References: <94007F3F05A24CF0AAFA916B42F93E69@davidPC> <4E29304E.1020001@erg.abdn.ac.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.56 on 132.146.168.158 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Jul 2011 13:02:30.0891 (UTC) FILETIME=[9D8FABB0:01CC486F] Cc: rsvp-dir@ietf.org Subject: Re: [rsvp-dir] Fwd: AD followup: draft-ietf-tsvwg-rsvp-security-groupkeying - IPR discussion X-BeenThere: rsvp-dir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: RSVP directorate List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 13:02:33 -0000 Gorry, I agree IPR on this was never discussed in tsvwg to my knowledge. The IPR declaration doesn't point to the specific IPR (which it doesn't have to), so we can only guess which of the approach(es) in the doc are encumbered. I reviewed this one a couple of times. As you say it's informational; it is primarily a comparative guide. Given this implies there are no specific issues about normative statements, the only IPR issue would be if the guidance is *unjustifiably* tilted towards a particular approach (assuming that might be the patented approached). When I reviewed it, I wasn't aware there was IPR on this one, so my "unjustified bias" detector wasn't turned up to max sensitivity. But in retrospect I'm very happy that all the guidance is technically sound. So I can't see there's any danger here. Bob At 09:09 22/07/2011, Gorry Fairhurst wrote: >RSVP directorate, > >We can't find any discussion of this in TSVWG, so we'll be looking >for comments on how this IPR should be considered for an INFO doc from the WG. > >Best wishes, > >Gorry > >-------- Original Message -------- >Subject: AD followup: draft-ietf-tsvwg-rsvp-security-groupkeying >Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 02:40:48 -0400 >From: David Harrington >To: >CC: > >Hi, > >Has the WG explicitly discussed acceptability of the IPR terms related >to this document? The RAND terms apply for compliance to the standard, >but this is not being submitted as a standards-track document. The >terms in the IPR declaration do not seem to provide non-assert >status for implementing an Informational document. > >Has the WG discussed this? > >If so, can you provide a link to the relevant thread? > >David Harrington >Director, IETF Transport Area >ietfdbh@comcast.net (preferred for ietf) >dbharrington@huaweisymantec.com >+1 603 828 1401 (cell) > > >_______________________________________________ >rsvp-dir mailing list >rsvp-dir@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rsvp-dir ________________________________________________________________ Bob Briscoe, BT Innovate & Design From bdavie@cisco.com Fri Jul 22 06:18:56 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rsvp-dir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rsvp-dir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DAC221F86CA for ; Fri, 22 Jul 2011 06:18:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.44 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.44 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.160, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IPEb9Got3xgV for ; Fri, 22 Jul 2011 06:18:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.86.73]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A316721F856D for ; Fri, 22 Jul 2011 06:18:51 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=bdavie@cisco.com; l=2768; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1311340731; x=1312550331; h=subject:mime-version:from:in-reply-to:date:cc: content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=YoSOqycvDRpJhIYKJLX12tfvEIwvtjbB5GmlmvbWoGk=; b=SazJG4nIEkq8vkCNktKYHHv/F9LoKWb+8yjsXQ6/qFJ/xvqeIlSuf90Z 8ZRSN7xMxoPn07CEOwFNm4KbXZ66tJ1PwrVFt8OHYk0pTWfmjLu1vHr6p yelDKTsITsicLLmrUyuyZRpHxqJdPmi5VClZsUUpROvvOTqBcPj/NpAbz Y=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av0EAPJ3KU6rRDoI/2dsb2JhbABNBqdJd4h8BJx0njKDPYIjXwSSboUHi3Q X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.67,247,1309737600"; d="scan'208";a="5480078" Received: from mtv-core-3.cisco.com ([171.68.58.8]) by rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 22 Jul 2011 13:18:51 +0000 Received: from [10.32.241.72] ([10.32.241.72]) by mtv-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p6MDInTQ022323; Fri, 22 Jul 2011 13:18:50 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Bruce Davie In-Reply-To: <201107221302.p6MD2ThI014679@bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk> Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 09:18:48 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <005157DF-FA7E-4064-8FBE-2E2FBD31BE1A@cisco.com> References: <94007F3F05A24CF0AAFA916B42F93E69@davidPC> <4E29304E.1020001@erg.abdn.ac.uk> <201107221302.p6MD2ThI014679@bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk> To: Bob Briscoe X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Cc: rsvp-dir@ietf.org Subject: Re: [rsvp-dir] Fwd: AD followup: draft-ietf-tsvwg-rsvp-security-groupkeying - IPR discussion X-BeenThere: rsvp-dir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: RSVP directorate List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 13:18:56 -0000 Bob, Thanks for the thoughtful analysis. Since the IPR owner in this case is = also my employer, I think I have to recuse myself from the discussion. Bruce On Jul 22, 2011, at 9:02 AM, Bob Briscoe wrote: > Gorry, >=20 > I agree IPR on this was never discussed in tsvwg to my knowledge. The = IPR declaration doesn't point to the specific IPR (which it doesn't have = to), so we can only guess which of the approach(es) in the doc are = encumbered. >=20 > I reviewed this one a couple of times. As you say it's informational; = it is primarily a comparative guide. Given this implies there are no = specific issues about normative statements, the only IPR issue would be = if the guidance is *unjustifiably* tilted towards a particular approach = (assuming that might be the patented approached). >=20 > When I reviewed it, I wasn't aware there was IPR on this one, so my = "unjustified bias" detector wasn't turned up to max sensitivity. But in = retrospect I'm very happy that all the guidance is technically sound. So = I can't see there's any danger here. >=20 >=20 > Bob >=20 > At 09:09 22/07/2011, Gorry Fairhurst wrote: >=20 >> RSVP directorate, >>=20 >> We can't find any discussion of this in TSVWG, so we'll be looking = for comments on how this IPR should be considered for an INFO doc from = the WG. >>=20 >> Best wishes, >>=20 >> Gorry >>=20 >> -------- Original Message -------- >> Subject: AD followup: draft-ietf-tsvwg-rsvp-security-groupkeying >> Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 02:40:48 -0400 >> From: David Harrington >> To: >> CC: >>=20 >> Hi, >>=20 >> Has the WG explicitly discussed acceptability of the IPR terms = related >> to this document? The RAND terms apply for compliance to the = standard, >> but this is not being submitted as a standards-track document. The = terms in the IPR declaration do not seem to provide non-assert status = for implementing an Informational document. >>=20 >> Has the WG discussed this? >>=20 >> If so, can you provide a link to the relevant thread? >>=20 >> David Harrington >> Director, IETF Transport Area >> ietfdbh@comcast.net (preferred for ietf) >> dbharrington@huaweisymantec.com >> +1 603 828 1401 (cell) >>=20 >>=20 >> _______________________________________________ >> rsvp-dir mailing list >> rsvp-dir@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rsvp-dir >=20 > ________________________________________________________________ > Bob Briscoe, BT Innovate & Design=20 > _______________________________________________ > rsvp-dir mailing list > rsvp-dir@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rsvp-dir