How does this affect the Ericsson claim last April which, as I
recall, said that
Ericsson would not assert its rights unless anyone claimed against Ericsson.
Does this claim by Cisco constitute such a claim against Ericsson?
Tom Petch
----- Original Message -----
From: "Geoff Huston" <gih@apnic.net>
To: <shim6@psg.com>
Cc: <shim6-chairs@tools.ietf.org>
Sent: Friday, December 15, 2006 6:55 PM
Subject: IPR Notice
> An IPR disclosure that pertains to the Internet-Draft entitled "Hash
> Based Addresses (HBA)" (draft-ietf-shim6-hba) was submitted to the
> IETF Secretariat on 2006-11-09 and has been posted on the "IETF Page
> of Intellectual Property Rights Disclosures"
> (https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/ipr_list.cgi). The title of the
> IPR disclosure is "Microsoft's Statement about IPR claimed in
> draft-ietf-shim6-hba-01." Its Claim Number 762, in the section
> "Specific IPR Disclosures", submitted on the 9th November.
>
> The disclosure has ticked the box:
>
> Royalty-Free, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory License to All
Implementers.
>
> and also ticked:
>
> This licensing declaration is limited solely to standards-track IETF
documents.
>
> Section 8 of RFC3979 states:
>
> "In general, IETF working groups prefer technologies with no known
> IPR claims or, for technologies with claims against them, an offer of
> royalty-free licensing. But IETF working groups have the discretion
> to adopt technology with a commitment of fair and non-discriminatory
> terms, or even with no licensing commitment, if they feel that this
> technology is superior enough to alternatives with fewer IPR claims
> or free licensing to outweigh the potential cost of the licenses.
>
>
> Are there any comments about the viability of HBA approach in the
> light of this, or do WG members think that the royalty-Free
> Non-Discriminatory terms are acceptable in this case?
>
> regards,
>
> Geoff & Kurtis
>
>
>