[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Intellectual Property Statement for the sampling techniques draft

Hi Nick,

I'm not a lawyer! And I'm happy not to be one. ;)

However, I had to read RFC3667/3668 for the NetFlow IPR.
And I think the draft doesn't comply to it.

First of all, you must insert something like in the draft status
   By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
   applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
   have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
   aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of RFC 3668.

Second, I think your statement in the draft violates the rule on blanket statements in RFC3668
6.4.3.  The requirement for an IPR disclosure is not satisfied by the
   submission of a blanket statement of possible IPR on every
   Contribution.  This is the case because the aim of the disclosure
   requirement is to provide information about specific IPR against
   specific technology under discussion in the IETF.  The requirement is
   also not satisfied by a blanket statement of willingness to license
   all potential IPR under fair and non-discriminatory terms for the
   same reason.  However, the requirement for an IPR disclosure is
   satisfied by a blanket statement of the IPR discloser's willingness
   to license all of its potential IPR meeting the requirements of
   Section 6.6 (and either Section 6.1.1 or 6.1.2) to implementers of an
   IETF specification on a royalty-free basis as long as any other terms
   and conditions are disclosed in the IPR disclosure statement.  
Regards, Benoit-not-a-lawyer



The AT&T disclosure conforms to the requirements of RFC 3668; additional information is not required.





From: Benoit Claise [mailto:bclaise@cisco.com]
Sent: Friday, August 06, 2004 2:16 AM
To: Duffield,Nicholas G (Nick)
Cc: psamp@ops.ietf.org
Subject: Re: Intellectual Property Statement for the sampling techniques draft



There is a more recent and specific IP statement from AT&T that will be
referred to in the next version of the framework draft:

This is good, as this is more specific.
However, shouldn't you mention to which hashing/filtering/sampling technique(s) your IPR refers.

Concerning other assertions of IP rights, I was referring to the
following psamp specific statement from Cisco, which will also be
referred to in the next version:

Very good.

Regards, Benoit.

-----Original Message-----
From: Benoit Claise [mailto:bclaise@cisco.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2004 9:30 PM
To: psamp
Subject: Intellectual Property Statement for the sampling techniques
During his session, Nick Duffield mentioned that he wrote an IPR
in the sampling techniques draft, and that potentially we might need
for NetFlow.
I started to investigate and this leads me to this question.
The IPR statement is pretty vague, specifically if I follow the link
      Intellectual Property Statement
     AT&T Corporation may own intellectual property applicable to
     contribution. The IETF has been notified of AT&T's licensing
     intent for the specification contained in this document. See
     http://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/ATT-GENERAL.txt for AT&T's IPR
Should we specify exactly which method(s) AT&T has got a patent for?
what is the patent number?
For example, the NetFlow IPR is pretty unambiguous.
Thanks for shedding some light.
Regards, Benoit.
to unsubscribe send a message to psamp-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/psamp/>