Subject: [Roll] IPR issue

From: JP Vasseur <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 20:47:10 +0100

Dear all,

Some of you expressed some concerns about IPR on RPL, more specifically,
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipr-announce/current/msg00167.html

Pascal Thubert, since you are the closest to this issue, could you  
please
shed some light on the IPR statement for that invention ?

Thanks.

JP.

---

From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 10:51:43 +0100

Hi JP,

Cisco announced IPR that might relate to the RPL work to the ROLL ML
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/roll/current/msg01181.html on April
16th. As we exposed that IPR prior to the actual work, we decided to be
very open and announced a rather broad list of publications at that
time. Since then, the Cisco IPR issue had been discussed a number of
times in this Mailing List. I never sensed a huge problem with it so
far. This did not strike me as a surprise considering Cisco's terms.

As I had mentioned before, Cisco's terms are quite generous.  In
layman's terms, Cisco will not sue anyone for products that implement
the standard under any of its essential patents, and reserves the right
to defend itself if someone sues Cisco for patent infringement.  I
believe this is essentially similar to a royalty-free license.  (I'm an
Engineer, not a Lawyer, so I'd encourage people in this group interested
in the terms to see the exact language for themselves:
http://www.ietf.org/ietf-ftp/IPR/cisco-ipr-draft-dt-roll-rpl-01.txt).  

Given that Cisco is currently the only one who has filed an IPR
declaration here, I don't understand those who are arguing that changing
course now, and possibly subjecting the standard to other IPR licensing
commitments that are not royalty-free, is a good thing for the WG.
Moreover, numerous IETF standards have thrived with similar declarations
without creating IPR problems.  I trust that the breadth of Cisco's
commitment will give everyone enough comfort to move past this issue.

Cheers,

Pascal

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
JP Vasseur (jvasseur)
Sent: jeudi 28 janvier 2010 20:47
To: ROLL WG; Pascal Thubert
Subject: [Roll] IPR issue

Dear all,

Thanks.

JP.

_______________________________________________
Roll mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 14:52:35 +0100

JP,

Thank for this note.

Please help us understand _who_ is 'RAV' - the anonymous poster with
address [email-masked], who posted recently about IPR and ROLL.

This helps better understand what's going on with IPR and RoLL.

Alex

> please shed some light on the IPR statement for that invention ?
>
> Thanks.
>
> JP.
>
> _______________________________________________ Roll mailing list
> [email-masked] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll
>

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 15:10:57 +0100

Pascal, thank you for this reply.

I have some comments to your comments, see below.

Le 29/01/2010 10:51, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) a écrit :
>  http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/roll/current/msg01181.html on
> April 16th. As we exposed that IPR prior to the actual work, we
> decided to be very open and announced a rather broad list of
> publications at that time. Since then, the Cisco IPR issue had been
> discussed a number of times in this Mailing List. I never sensed a
> huge problem with it so far. This did not strike me as a surprise
> considering Cisco's terms.

Well, I saw usually problems come up when document is in final stages
and go to implementer ask to implement.  Implementer then goes to open
source communities and ask around and open source community asks back
about IPR.  Which then often stales with high-profile complaints about
IPR and technology - it doesn't get implemented.

> the standard under any of its essential patents, and reserves the
> right to defend itself if someone sues Cisco for patent
> infringement.

Well yes.  I also consider generally that Cisco's IPR terms at IETF are
ok with me.  However, here we had 'RAV' asking this:

   "There is a free license to use the patent in RPL so long as you and
    your company doesn't sue Cisco over ANY other patent for ANYTHING."

This means that if my company wants to implement _only_ RPL then my
company has to not sue Cisco about, for example, the name "iPhone".
Which may mean big trouble.

In this context, what do you Pascal think about the question 'Rav'
raised?  Do you think s/he's right to worry that Cisco's free license
implies a company engages too broadly to not sue Cisco?  Or do you think
a company has no reason to worry?

> I believe this is essentially similar to a royalty-free license. (I'm
> an Engineer, not a Lawyer, so I'd encourage people in this group
> interested in the terms to see the exact language for themselves:

Me
too I am engineer not a lawyer.  As an engineer, could you please
identify the parts in RPL on which your employer's lawyers may claim IPR?

For example - is section 6.3.1 "DAG Discovery Rules" covered by Cisco
IPR?  Is it not?

Thanks.

> declaration here, I don't understand those who are arguing that
> changing course now, and possibly subjecting the standard to other
> IPR licensing commitments that are not royalty-free, is a good thing
> for the WG.

Hmmm... I maintain that several IPR from several companies is better
than a single IPR from a single company who BTW happens to be employing
both a co-Chair and a main DT contributor and, err, some ADs maybe.

Royalties are and money are not the only aspect of IPR.  Names like
"iPhone" are fundamental too, because they mean sentiments and money in
the end.

> Moreover, numerous IETF standards have thrived with similar
> declarations without creating IPR problems.

No no, very unsure about this.  E.g. GRE did not thrive; I think it is
so because it was exclusively Cisco.

> I trust that the breadth of Cisco's commitment will give everyone
> enough comfort to move past this issue.

PErsonally, I do not have an IPR stake in this.  I am an outsider.  I do
appreciate Cisco documents and the usual Cisco RAND.  However, in this
case I need to make sure this gets implemented and it doesn't get blocked.

The way to help with this is if someone else than Cisco had some IPR
claims on this, and that there was competition.

Other ways to deal with this (eliminate the IPR-contaminated/tainted
parts, or other) may exist.

I am not sure what you people want to do,

Alex

>
> Cheers,
>
> Pascal
>
>
> -----Original Message----- From: [email-masked]
> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of JP Vasseur (jvasseur)
> Sent: jeudi 28 janvier 2010 20:47 To: ROLL WG; Pascal Thubert

---

From: JP Vasseur <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 18:37:23 +0100

Dear Alex,

> This helps better understand what's going on with IPR and RoLL.

unfortunately I cannot tell you ... Just don't know.

Thanks,

JP.

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 19:00:50 +0100

Dear JP,

Do you tolerate unidentified comments happening in this group?

Is this serious?

Alex

Le 29/01/2010 18:37, JP Vasseur a écrit :
>> Please help us understand _who_ is 'RAV' - the anonymous poster
>> with address [email-masked], who posted recently about IPR and
>>  ROLL.
>>
>>> _______________________________________________ Roll mailing
>>> list [email-masked] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

---

From: JP Vasseur <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 19:08:26 +0100

Hi Alex,

> Do you tolerate unidentified comments happening in this group?

As pointed out in the IETF guidelines:

Participation in the IETF or of its WGs is not fee-based or  
organizationally defined, but is based upon self-identification and  
active participation by individuals.

Cheers.

JP.

---

From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 19:19:28 +0100

Hi Alex:

This is an IETF list, it's open with the reasonable hope that people who join wish to understand and contribute to the technology.

This is not always the case but it usually works. I would not expect from the chairs or some bigger brother to police every mail that comes in the list. And it is perfectly acceptable to discuss IPR. You did so in the past. Since we are at it...

As an author of RFC 3963, I trust that you remember that Cisco had IPR on NEMO too. 
The terms that were finally used are the same as those that are proposed here, for all I assert/remember.
Since you mention it in your mail, would you think that Cisco IPR had any counter effect on open source?

Cheers,

Pascal

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Alexandru Petrescu
Sent: vendredi 29 janvier 2010 19:01
To: JP Vasseur (jvasseur)
Cc: Pascal Thubert; ROLL WG
Subject: Re: [Roll] IPR issue

Dear JP,

Is this serious?

Alex

---

From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 19:19:35 +0100

Hi Alex:

Cheers,

Pascal

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Alexandru Petrescu
Sent: vendredi 29 janvier 2010 19:01
To: JP Vasseur (jvasseur)
Cc: Pascal Thubert; ROLL WG
Subject: Re: [Roll] IPR issue

Dear JP,

Is this serious?

Alex

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 20:23:24 +0100

Le 29/01/2010 19:19, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) a écrit :
> Hi Alex:
>
> This is an IETF list, it's open with the reasonable hope that people
> who join wish to understand and contribute to the technology.

Yes, open, but there are rules, e.g. RFC2418 at a point:

"Moderate the WG email list

       The Chair should attempt to ensure that the discussions on this
       list are relevant and that they converge to consensus agreements."

> This is not always the case but it usually works. I would not expect
> from the chairs or some bigger brother to police every mail that
> comes in the list.

Hmm, not sure.  In netlmm WG there was some unidentified poster at some
point who stirred waters about "netlemmings".  There was Chair
intervention to give guidance.  It was reassuring.

Regularly on the IETF list we see complaints, procedure, email rights,
appeals, etc.

> And it is perfectly acceptable to discuss IPR. You did so in the
> past. Since we are at it...

I am ready to discuss with you about IPR aspects.  But the current IPR
thread was provoked by we don't know what.  It's difficult to continue
discussing without doubting it's all bluff (as in poker: deceiving
provocation).

> As an author of RFC 3963, I trust that you remember that Cisco had
> IPR on NEMO too. The terms that were finally used are the same as
> those that are proposed here, for all I assert/remember. Since you
> mention it in your mail, would you think that Cisco IPR had any
> counter effect on open source?

Thanks for mentioning it.  YEs, we worked together on NEMO and IPR
aspects.  Cisco's IPR claims on NEMO were ok, but were not the only
ones.  Nokia's IPR were explicitely geared towards Open Source.

I wonder what's the IPR count for OSPF? (how many different companies
made IPR claims on it).

Anyways,

Alex

> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Alexandru Petrescu Sent:
> vendredi 29 janvier 2010 19:01 To: JP Vasseur (jvasseur) Cc: Pascal
> Thubert; ROLL WG Subject: Re: [Roll] IPR issue
>
> Dear JP,
>
>>> with address [email-masked], who posted recently about IPR
>>> and ROLL.
>>>

---

From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 13:44:18 +0100

Hi Alex:

I have no clue for OSPF but I think I follow your drift and agree with your points. 

Also you're perfectly correct that for NEMO, both the Nokia and the Cisco statements did not prevent the open source implementations to thrive, and the same goes for RPL.

And finally I also agree with you this thread is really suspicious from the start. That was the occasion to make sure that the group was well aware of the Cisco IPR and terms, though. Maybe we can leave it at that for the time being?

Cheers,

Pascal

-----Original Message-----
From: Alexandru Petrescu [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: vendredi 29 janvier 2010 20:23
To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
Cc: JP Vasseur (jvasseur); Pascal Thubert; ROLL WG
Subject: Re: [Roll] IPR issue

Anyways,

Alex

---

From: Roger Alexander <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 05:34:16 -0800 (PST)

Hi Pascal,

I support the effort made in being open and forthright regarding the IPR issue and Cisco's IPR provisions as it relates to RPL. With any standards development it is impossible to a priori guarantee that it does not include elements of any given individual's or company's IPR. They key therefore, particularly in an open forum like the IETF, is for the community, collectively, to be as forthright and transparent as possible where individuals or companies may have IPR or knowledge of IPR that may be related to on-going work. In that regard, I certainly appreciate the steps already taken.

Thanks.

Roger

----- Original Message ----
From: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <[email-masked]>
To: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Cc: Pascal Thubert <[email-masked]>; ROLL WG <[email-masked]>
Sent: Sat, January 30, 2010 7:44:18 AM
Subject: Re: [Roll] IPR issue

Hi Alex:

Cheers,

Pascal

-----Original Message-----
From: Alexandru Petrescu [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: vendredi 29 janvier 2010 20:23
To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
Cc: JP Vasseur (jvasseur); Pascal Thubert; ROLL WG
Subject: Re: [Roll] IPR issue

Anyways,

Alex