Subject: [Roll] FW: Posting of IPR Disclosure related to Cisco's Statement of IPR relating to draft-ietf-roll-rpl-06

From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 18:21:22 +0100

Hi Roger, Ruben, Sung, Emmanuel, Don, and all concerned with the Cisco
IPR debate:

It is my understanding that this new declaration implements Roger's
suggested compromise regarding Sung and Ruben's concerns, also relayed
by Emmanuel.

For reference:
Roger suggested:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/roll/current/msg03045.html 
Sung said:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/roll/current/msg03034.html
Emmanuel said:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/roll/current/msg03063.html
Ruben said:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/roll/current/msg03026.html 

With this new IPR declaration, Cisco retains its defensive right in the
context of RPL implementations *only*. By the new terms Cisco will not
"walk freely anywhere" in someone else's "property". And the answer to
Sung's question about "infringing patents NOT related to RPL" is now a
NO. Simply, Cisco opens its IPR on RPL to anyone that reciprocally does
the exact same, which seems quite fair to me. For all I know, this is a
major and somewhat exceptional step that should be recognized as such.
And alternate terms based on RAND are still available to anyone who
would prefer that way.

Sadly, I'll still refrain from detailing which exact pieces RPL I
personally think are covered by this IPR. I think it is pretty clear by
now that this would not have a lot of value since 1) I'm not a lawyer,
and 2) even less your own lawyer. Also the logic of claims somewhat
escapes me, in particular when it comes to coverage. All I know is that
the disclosures I was involved with detail ways to build trees and DAGs,
propagate metrics and paint unicast and multicast routes along the DAGs,
compress and expands routing headers, all things that are somewhat
similar to RPL operations.

I sincerely hope that this declaration will allow us to reach a positive
consensus on the current poll about Cisco's IPR and move forward with
RPL as soon as possible. Please let us know.

Pascal

-----Original Message-----
From: IETF Secretariat [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2010 5:18 PM
To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert); [email-masked];
[email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Posting of IPR Disclosure related to Cisco's Statement of IPR
relating to draft-ietf-roll-rpl-06

Dear Pascal Thubert, Tim Winter, ROLL Team:

An IPR disclosure that pertains to your Internet-Draft entitled "RPL:
IPv6 Routing Protocol for Low power and Lossy Networks"
(draft-ietf-roll-rpl) was submitted to the IETF Secretariat on
2010-02-23 and has been posted on the "IETF Page of Intellectual
Property Rights Disclosures"
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1270/). The title of the IPR
disclosure is "Cisco's Statement of IPR relating to
draft-ietf-roll-rpl-06."

The IETF Secretariat

---

From: "Salazar, Ruben" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 13:21:12 -0500

Pascal, et al.
This is definitely a great move in the right direction.
We feel much better with the new IPR statement from Cisco.
Regards

Ruben Salazar, PhD
Director of Research  and Technology
Landys+Gyr EMS
Office: 678 258 3165
Cellular: 678 438 0063
[email-masked]
www.landisgyr.com
manage energy better

Ruben Salazar
Director of Technology
Landis+Gyr
Energy Management Solutions
Office: +1 678 258 3165
Fax: +1 678 258 1550
[email-masked]
www.landisgyr.com
manage energy better
-----Original Message-----
From: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2010 12:21 PM
To: Roger Alexander; [email-masked]; Salazar, Ruben; Sung Lee; Emmanuel Baccelli
Cc: [email-masked]; Dan Lang (dlang)
Subject: FW: Posting of IPR Disclosure related to Cisco's Statement of IPR relating to draft-ietf-roll-rpl-06

For reference:
Roger suggested:

Pascal

-----Original Message-----
From: IETF Secretariat [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2010 5:18 PM
To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert); [email-masked];

The IETF Secretariat

---

From: Emmanuel Baccelli <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 22:24:32 +0100

Hi Pascal, Hi Dan,
same for me. The new terms seem much more reasonable, as far as I can tell
from my non-lawyer perspective!
Regards,
Emmanuel

On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 7:21 PM, Salazar, Ruben <[email-masked]
> wrote:

---

From: Sung Lee <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 21:34:01 -0500

Pascal,

I too agree with Ruben that this is a great move in the right direction.
Following Dan's recommendation, I will forward this recent decision from
Cisco to our legal.

Best regards,
Sung

---

From: "Roger Alexander" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 09:35:36 -0500

Thanks Pascal and Dan for the great flexibility and accommodation shown on
the part of Cisco and the willingness of its individuals to engage with the
work group in an open and forthright way to continue to support the on-going
standards development work.

Thank you.

Roger

-----Original Message-----
From: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2010 12:21 PM
To: Roger Alexander; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; Sung
Lee; Emmanuel Baccelli
Cc: [email-masked]; Dan Lang (dlang)
Subject: FW: Posting of IPR Disclosure related to Cisco's Statement of IPR
relating to draft-ietf-roll-rpl-06

For reference:
Roger suggested:

Pascal

-----Original Message-----
From: IETF Secretariat [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2010 5:18 PM
To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert); [email-masked];

The IETF Secretariat