Subject: [ipfix-eval] Re: Discussion of Candidate Protocols

From: Nevil Brownlee <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 03:15:51 +1200

Hi all:

Sebastian and Paul have made very polite remarks about the advocates
holding back from discussing the candidate protocols.  But there's
no need for that!  Do please feel free to comment on the other proposals,
robust debate on the list will help everyone understand the differences
between the protocols.

Cheers, Nevil

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
   Nevil Brownlee                   Director, Technology Development
   Phone: +64 9 373 7599 x8941      ITSS, The University of Auckland
   FAX: +64 9 373 7021      Private Bag 92019, Auckland, New Zealand

-------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/

--
Help        mailto:[email-masked] and say "help" in message body
Unsubscribe mailto:[email-masked] and say
"unsubscribe ipfix" in message body
Archive     http://ipfix.doit.wisc.edu/archive/

---

From: Stas Khirman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 16:22:01 -0700

I think that some clarification have to be made: Every and each IPDR
participating companies signed "release of intellectual rights" document. At
least it was a primary condition for participation ( and I hope that
IPDR.org administrative staff have all paperwork in order). 
 
Certainly, I am not lawyer,  but on my humble opinion all IPDR rights belong
today to IPDR.org and not to any separate member-company. Submitting IPDR
draft to IETF, IPDR.org is shows readiness to share all intellectual rights
with IETF and (automatically) with a general public (I think IETF follows
GPL policy).  
 
I'm forwarding this message to few IPDR key people and appreciate if they
provide IPFIX with a more formal information and legal questions
clarification .

Stas

-----Original Message-----
From: Harrington, David [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 3:15 PM
To: 'Jeff Meyer'
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [ipfix-eval] Discussion of Candidate Protocols

Hi Jeff, 

Since IPDR is forum based, rather than a vendor proposal, have you been
assured that all the members of the forum will submit IPR Notices to the
IETF stating this? or that a joint notice from IPDR.org will be filed?

dbh 

> -----Original Message----- 
> From: Jeff Meyer [ mailto:[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]> ] 
> Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 4:00 PM 
> To: Harrington, David 
> Cc: [email-masked] 
> Subject: Re: [ipfix-eval] Discussion of Candidate Protocols 
> 
> 
> David, 
> 
>    Section 1.3 in the IPDR Advocacy draft states: 
> 
>      1.3 Patent Protection 
> 
>     There are no known patents which apply to or affect the 
>     right to freely use this technology. 
> 
>    I have been assured that this is the case. 
> 
> Regards, 
> 
>    Jeff Meyer 
> 
> 
> Harrington, David wrote: 
> 
> > A question: Are there intellectual property claims against 
> IPDR? There 
> > probably are for all the protocols proposed; I just don't remember 
> > seeing anything mentioned and want to make sure all the 
> cards are on the 
> > table. 
> > 
> > dbh 
> > 
> >  > -----Original Message----- 
> >  > From: Robert Lowe [ mailto:[email-masked]
<mailto:[email-masked]> ] 
> >  > Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 1:57 PM 
> >  > To: Jeff Meyer 
> >  > Cc: Sebastian Zander; Peter Ludemann; 
> [email-masked] 
> >  > Subject: Re: [ipfix-eval] Discussion of Candidate Protocols 
> >  > 
> >  > 
> >  > Jeff Meyer wrote: 
> >  > 
> >  > Attention: lurker factor in play... 
> >  > 
> >  > > An implementation 
> >  > > for what IPDR requires is pretty trivial.  IPDR 
> >  > > members have access to opensource for this in 
> >  > > both Java and C. 
> >  > 
> >  > The common definition of opensource includes descriptives such 
> >  > as "publicly-available" and "no-strings-attached".  You seem 
> >  > like a pretty good evangelist for IPDR, but once someone starts 
> >  > passing the collection plate, using the word "opensource" only 
> >  > sullies the good name of the sacred cow of 21st century computing 
> >  > with the marketeer's comparison to a members-only reference 
> >  > implementation.  Some words don't have increasing degrees of 
> >  > comparison.  You can be dead, but you can't be 'deader', and in 
> >  > my book, open is open, not open for a fee.  Grammer lesson and 
> >  > rant off... 
> >  > 
> >  > -Robert 
> >  > 
> >  > -- 
> >  > Help        mailto:[email-masked]
<mailto:[email-masked]>  and say "help" 
> >  > in message body 
> >  > Unsubscribe mailto:[email-masked]
<mailto:[email-masked]>  and say 
> >  > Archive     http://ipfix.doit.wisc.edu/archive/
<http://ipfix.doit.wisc.edu/archive/>

---

From: "Aron Heintz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 17:47:22 -0500

Following are comments on openness and likelihood of adoption (some given
in relative ignorance of your technical problem domain - sorry).

	It seems to me that NDM-U wins the "free, open, and widely deployed" crown
hands down.  NDM-U 3.1 is completely free and publicly available (see
below).  By the end of this year, more than 70% of the mediation and billing
packages (by market share) will have proven NDM-U 3.1 *real-world*
interoperability.

	What could be more important than this?  It appears that some of you are
debating minor technical points when you might approach the question "Who is
going to receive the data we are sending?  How do they want to see it?"
Technologies do not win by virtue of their theoretical perfection.  The OSI
model is close to theoretical perfection.  TCP/IP is not.

	Do you want to attach yourself to a technology created, supported, and
propagated by a single vendor?  If not, narrow your field to NDM-U vs.
Diameter.  You will also find that NDM-U technology *is* close to
perfection, thanks to 40+ vendors and service provider heavyweights putting
their combined engineering talent into the design process.

	IPDR Organization is 100% open to any entity (person or corporation) who
wishes to participate.  In three years, 60+ vendors have chosen to do so,
representing most of the packages you might send IPFIX records to.  Members
requested the legal structure of a non-profit with an IPR-membership
agreement for two purposes:

	a) Provide a safe environment for technical exchange. Engineers can lay
down competitive concerns to be completely open and unconcerned with IPR and
legal impediments.  IPR checks can safely happen after the engineering
collaboration occurs, so there is no development time is lost to a-priori
legal queries.
	b) To harness members' financial contributions towards more rapid progress.

	All members confirm that the IPR they contribute is free and clear of
obligations for the Organization and therefore available for free public
distribution.  The exact IPR agreement can be found on the IPDR web site,
but highlights include:

"2.1	Subject to the provisions of Section 5 of this Agreement, upon
contribution of a Contributed Document to the Group, Member hereby grants to
the Group, the other Members and the public, a worldwide, irrevocable,
non-exclusive, royalty free license to the Contributed Document, to use,
copy, execute, reproduce, modify, translate, prepare derivative works in the
Group's name based upon all or any portion thereof, disclose, distribute,
(other than for profit), and otherwise deal with such Contributed Document.

9.1	Either Party may terminate the Agreement without cause. Upon such
termination, Member shall continue to perform in accordance with the
Agreement to the extent that Member has: (1) relinquished any or all of its
rights, including without limitation any and all patent rights; and (2)
granted the Group, the public domain or others, any rights under the
Agreement, including without limitation, any and all licenses."

	As a result of this structure, IPDR Members have made incredible progress
in three years, include multiple revisions and finally a mature version of a
specification that has been *proven* by interoperability amongst a dozen
packages.  I challenge you to find another (business systems) standard that
has gone from conception to widespread *industrial* practice so fast.

	IPDR Organization is completely commited to open flow of information.  The
top two value statements confirmed by the Board are: 1 - Focus direction
through consensus 2 - Open gathering of ideas and information.

	Jeff Meyer, as Chair of the Protocols Working group, has my highest
confidence in representing NDM-U 3.1 as a technology.  NDM-U 3.1 and all
associated IPR has been released to the public for royalty-free use and
redistribution.  David (below) mentions the need to submit IPR forms - I can
have those processed as necessary. I would expect any additional work that
is done within IPFIX and extends NDM-U 3.1 to be subject to the normal IETF
rules and restrictions.

Aron Heintz
President, IPDR Organization

-----Original Message-----
From: Jeff Meyer [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 19:12
To: Harrington, David; [email-masked]; Aron Heintz
Subject: Re: [ipfix-eval] Discussion of Candidate Protocols

David,

   I believe the legal agreement signed by IPDR members
passes the rights to IPDR itself.  IPDR's board has
approved this submission activity.

   I'll forward this onto the IPDR President for further
clarification.

-- Jeff

Harrington, David wrote:

>  > From: Jeff Meyer [mailto:[email-masked]]
>  > >  > From: Robert Lowe [mailto:[email-masked]]