Subject: [nemo] Implementation requirements and IPR

From: Henrik Petander <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 13:37:35 +0300

Hi,

The IPR issue was left open at the last IETF. Is there any new
information about the Cisco claims?

IMHO the coverage of the Cisco claims should be known before deciding
which part of the protocol is a MUST to implement. That is unless we
accept that all implementations of the basic protocol depend or might 
depend on non-royalty-free patents.

Henrik

---

From: Marco Molteni <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 14:09:49 +0200

On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 13:37:35 +0300
Henrik Petander <[email-masked]> wrote:

FYI Pascal is on holiday this week so his reply may delay a few days.

Marco

---

From: Marco Molteni <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 14:09:49 +0200

Marco