Subject: Re: [sfc] IPR Disclosure on SFC work

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 23:08:32 -0400

To close out this thread, there have been some clear voices to just
note the IPR disclosure and continue working as we were
chartered. There have also been some comments suggesting it might be
nice to ask the IPR holder for additional clarifications. There have
been no suggestions to stop or delay the SFC work.

We will continue to proceed with the SFC work.  We will take no
aditional action at this time with respect to the disclosure.

Specifically:

1) There is no formal mechanism in the IETF for asking IPR holders to
   "clarify" their disclosures. This is an intentional result stemming
   from long discussions over many years within the IETF that led to
   the current IETF IPR policies (i.e., RFC 3979 and related
   documents).

2) The IPR holder in this case has members who participate in the WG;
   it would be a reasonable to assume they have followed the
   discussions on this topic and are aware of the discussions on this
   topic.  In the (very) few cases in the past when IETF WGs have
   "pushed back" on a particular IPR disclosure and have gotten the
   IPR holder to respond, it is a result of this sort of informal
   interaction. In other words, the discussion on this list has in
   effect been a vehicle to express a desire for additional
   clarification.

The above said, there is not strong WG demand or consensus to pursue
any approach other than moving forward and continuing our work. And
certainly no demand to delay or stop work. Attempting to work around
the IPR in specific solution drafts will of course be an option the WG
can consider at the time there is a specific solution to consider.

Thomas & Jim