Subject: Re: [Roll] IPR issue

From: Zach Shelby <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2010 10:44:32 +0200

I totally agree with Roger and the earlier comment from Don Sturek. Time to move forward with the work.

Zach

On Jan 30, 2010, at 15:34 , Roger Alexander wrote:

> 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:
> 
> 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
> 
> 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
> 
>> 
>> 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,
>> 
>> Do you tolerate unidentified comments happening in this group?
>> 
>> Is this serious?
>> 
>> Alex
>> 
>> Le 29/01/2010 18:37, JP Vasseur a écrit :
>>> Dear Alex,
>>> 
>>> On Jan 29, 2010, at 2:52 PM, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
>>> 
>>>> 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.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> unfortunately I cannot tell you ... Just don't know.
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> 
>>> JP.
>>> 
>>>> Alex
>>>> 
>>>> Le 28/01/2010 20:47, JP Vasseur a écrit :
>>>>> 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.
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________ Roll mailing
>>>>> list [email-masked] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________ Roll mailing list
>> [email-masked] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Roll mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Roll mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll

-- 
http://www.sensinode.com
http://zachshelby.org - My blog "On the Internet of Things"
http://6lowpan.net - New book - "6LoWPAN: The Wireless Embedded Internet"
Mobile: +358 40 7796297

Zach Shelby
Head of Research
Sensinode Ltd.
Kidekuja 2
88610 Vuokatti, FINLAND

This e-mail and all attached material are confidential and may contain legally privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete the e-mail from your system without producing, distributing or retaining copies thereof.