Subject: [Syslog] Need your input on the Hauwei IPR claim

From: Chris Lonvick <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2006 15:23:46 -0700 (PDT)

Hi Folks,

Everyone has now had a week to think about the IETF process on IPR claims. 
The first decision that we need to make is about the terms of the claim.
I'd like to hear what people think about the terms that Huawei has 
presented.
   https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/ipr_detail_show.cgi?&ipr_id=724

Please keep in mind that we can (and should) proceed with 
syslog-transport-tls if the terms appear reasonable and you (as 
implementors) are willing to accept them.  Let's keep this discussion 
focused.
- We do not need a discussion of the terms.
- We do not need any legal opinions.
- We do not need a discussion of technical alternatives on this thread.

>From that, I'd like to hear either:

A) The WG SHOULD proceed with draft-ietf-syslog-transport-tls as a Working 
Group document.

or

B) The WG SHOULD NOT proceed with draft-ietf-syslog-transport-tls as a 
Working Group document.

I'll leave this open until the 19th (so people going to the IETF can catch 
their collective breaths and give a good opinion.

If the consensus appears to be "A" then we can get straight back to work.

If the consensus appears to be "B" then I will very briefly ask if there 
are changes to the terms that would make them acceptable.  I'll only ask 
that if the consensus appears to be "B" so don't insert your opinions on 
that at this time.  I'm (just barely) willing to ask that (once) of the 
Huawei lawyers but I feel that negotiating terms is not going to move us 
forward; it's likely to be a rat-hole discussion and I won't let us go 
down there.

If the consensus remains "B" then we will likely move away from 
syslog-transport-tls.  Where we move to will be a different discussion so 
please don't insert your opinion about that on this discussion thread. 
David has opened that discussion on a separate thread so you may discuss 
it on the list, but I'm not focused on that at this time.

Thanks,
Chris

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

---

From: "John Calcote" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2006 17:33:40 -0600

I vote for A).
 
I don't know how Huawei managed to get a patent on mapping an existing
well-known protocol onto an existing well-known transport. Which concept
did they patent - tunneling? But as you stated in your request, that's
neither here nor there. It appears that their terms are reasonable. I
say go ahead.
 
John

>>> Chris Lonvick <[email-masked]> 07/05/06 4:23 PM >>>
Hi Folks,

Everyone has now had a week to think about the IETF process on IPR
claims. 
The first decision that we need to make is about the terms of the
claim.
I'd like to hear what people think about the terms that Huawei has 
presented.
   https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/ipr_detail_show.cgi?&ipr_id=724

- We do not need a discussion of technical alternatives on this
thread.

>From that, I'd like to hear either:

A) The WG SHOULD proceed with draft-ietf-syslog-transport-tls as a
Working 
Group document.

or

Working Group document.

I'll leave this open until the 19th (so people going to the IETF can
catch 
their collective breaths and give a good opinion.

If the consensus appears to be "A" then we can get straight back to
work.

If the consensus appears to be "B" then I will very briefly ask if
there 
are changes to the terms that would make them acceptable.  I'll only
ask 
that if the consensus appears to be "B" so don't insert your opinions
on 
that at this time.  I'm (just barely) willing to ask that (once) of the

Huawei lawyers but I feel that negotiating terms is not going to move
us 
forward; it's likely to be a rat-hole discussion and I won't let us go

down there.

If the consensus remains "B" then we will likely move away from 
syslog-transport-tls.  Where we move to will be a different discussion
so 
please don't insert your opinion about that on this discussion thread.

David has opened that discussion on a separate thread so you may
discuss 
it on the list, but I'm not focused on that at this time.

Thanks,
Chris

---

From: Darren J Moffat <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2006 10:07:48 +0100

The terms are not acceptable to me as written.

For the record but as Chris requested not for discussion, it is this 
part that concerns me most:

"and Huawei retains the right to assert
its patents against any product or portion thereof that is not necessary 
for compliance with the standard."

--
Darren J Moffat

---

From: "Tom Petch" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2006 14:27:11 +0200

B) As the document is technically inadequate as a standard for syslog over TLS,
we
would also benefit from a fresh start with an editor without H*** in their
e-mail address.

Tom Petch

---

From: Chris Lonvick <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 06:20:46 -0700 (PDT)

> would also benefit from a fresh start with an editor without H*** in their

Tom,

This is inappropriate.

First, remarks that discredit any group or company are not permitted 
within the IETF.  We make progress by seeking consensus.  Attacking any 
group or company will drive wedges between our group and I will not permit 
it on this mailing list.

Second, Huawei has been complying with the rules specified in RFC 3979. 
They have claimed some IPR in syslog-transport-tls; they have notified the 
Working Group; and have specified their terms in the IPR claim repository. 
Changing authors will not change the fact that Huawei has an IPR claim 
associated with the work.  The authors have been responsive and active in 
seeking input and trying to gain consensus on the technical merits of the 
document.  I see no reason for them to be removed or replaced.

Please do not make comments of this nature in the future.

-Chris

---

From: Balazs Scheidler <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 11:40:17 +0200

> A) The WG SHOULD proceed with draft-ietf-syslog-transport-tls as a Working 

Sorry for the late reply, I had a tough time deciding this, my opinion
is A),  we should continue working on the new transport-tls documents.

-- 
Bazsi

---

From: Chris Lonvick <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 04:14:52 -0700 (PDT)

Hi Folks,

Please continue to send in your opinion on this.  I'll determine consensus 
next Thursday and outline our steps to go forward.

Thanks,
Chris

On Wed, 5 Jul 2006, Chris Lonvick wrote:

> I'd like to hear what people think about the terms that Huawei has presented.
> syslog-transport-tls if the terms appear reasonable and you (as implementors) 
> are willing to accept them.  Let's keep this discussion focused.
> If the consensus appears to be "B" then I will very briefly ask if there are 
> changes to the terms that would make them acceptable.  I'll only ask that if 
> the consensus appears to be "B" so don't insert your opinions on that at this 
> time.  I'm (just barely) willing to ask that (once) of the Huawei lawyers but 
> I feel that negotiating terms is not going to move us forward; it's likely to 
> be a rat-hole discussion and I won't let us go down there.
>
> please don't insert your opinion about that on this discussion thread. David 
> has opened that discussion on a separate thread so you may discuss it on the 
> list, but I'm not focused on that at this time.
>
> Thanks,
> Chris
>

---

From: "Glenn M. Keeni" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 14:21:21 +0900

A.

Glenn

Chris Lonvick wrote:
> Hi Folks,
>
> Please continue to send in your opinion on this.  I'll determine 
> consensus next Thursday and outline our steps to go forward.
>
> Thanks,
> Chris
>
>> claims. The first decision that we need to make is about the terms of 
>> the claim.
>> B) The WG SHOULD NOT proceed with draft-ietf-syslog-transport-tls as 
>> a Working Group document.
>>
>> catch their collective breaths and give a good opinion.
>>
>> there are changes to the terms that would make them acceptable.  I'll 
>> only ask that if the consensus appears to be "B" so don't insert your 
>> opinions on that at this time.  I'm (just barely) willing to ask that 
>> (once) of the Huawei lawyers but I feel that negotiating terms is not 
>> going to move us forward; it's likely to be a rat-hole discussion and 
>> I won't let us go down there.
>>
>> syslog-transport-tls.  Where we move to will be a different 
>> discussion so please don't insert your opinion about that on this 
>> discussion thread. David has opened that discussion on a separate 
>> thread so you may discuss it on the list, but I'm not focused on that 
>> at this time.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Chris
>>

---

From: "Andrew Ross" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 18:35:35 +1200

Chris,

After reading the IPR document, my vote is for A.

A. The WG SHOULD proceed with draft-ietf-syslog-transport-tls as a Working
Group document.

Regards

Andrew

Kiwi Enterprises