RE: Intellectual Property Statement for the sampling techniques draft

[<duffield@research.att.com>]

Benoit,
________________________________________
> From: Benoit Claise [mailto:bclaise@cisco.com]
> Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2004 8:43 AM
> To: Duffield,Nicholas G (Nick)
> Cc: psamp@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: 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.

This text will be included, as required in RFC 3667. Thanks


> 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
> Benoit,
> 

I think the term "blanket statements" refers here to the generic IP statements such as those found near the top of http://www.ietf.org/ipr.html. The statement referred to in previous versions of this draft was of this type. The new AT&T statement, however, conforms to RFC 3668, and in particular, Section 6.4.1.

Here is the proposed new IPR section for the framework draft. 

16.	Intellectual Property Statements

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.

The IETF has been notified by AT&T Corp. of intellectual property rights claimed in regard to some or all of the specification contained in this document. For more information, see 
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/att-ipr-draft-ietf-psamp-framework.txt

The IETF has been notified by Cisco Corp. of intellectual property rights claimed in regard to some or all of the specification contained in this document. For more information, see 
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/cisco-ipr-draft-ietf-psamp-protocol.txt

Nick

> The AT&T disclosure conforms to the requirements of RFC 3668; 
> additional information is not required.
> 
> Nick
> 
> 
> ________________________________________
> 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
> 
> Nick,
> 
> 
> Benoit,
> 
> 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:
> 
> http://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/att-ipr-draft-ietf-psamp-framework.txt
> 
> 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:
> 
> http://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/cisco-ipr-draft-ietf-psamp-protocol.txt
> 
> Very good.
> 
> Regards, Benoit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nick
> 
> 
> 
> -----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
> 
> draft
> 
> Hi,
> 
> During his session, Nick Duffield mentioned that he wrote an IPR
> 
> section
> 
> in the sampling techniques draft, and that potentially we might need
> 
> one
> 
> 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
> 
>   10.
>       Intellectual Property Statement
> 
>      AT&T Corporation may own intellectual property applicable to
>      this
>      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
>      statement.
> 
> Should we specify exactly which method(s) AT&T has got a patent for?
> 
> And
> 
> what is the patent number?
> For example, the NetFlow IPR is pretty unambiguous.
> http://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/cisco-claise-netflow.txt
> 
> 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/>
> 
> 
> 
> 




--
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/>