IPR [Re: ISATAP scenario]

[Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>]

(co-chair hat on)

On Thu, 5 Aug 2004, JINMEI Tatuya / [ISO-2022-JP] 神明達哉 wrote:
> (I'm not sure if it is appropriate to talk about IPR policy of a
> particular developer in this list, so I'll try to refrain from making
> further posts in this thread on this particular point.)
[...]

Agreed -- no need to go into details with particular vendor's choices 
(i.e., if folks want to change these or discuss these decisions, let's 
not do it on this list!)

However, the decisions like these are valid considerations when
obtaining rough consensus on which technologies to adapt.

For example, if it is believed these would affect the deployment in a
significant way, and there are alternatives which would not have the
drawbacks, the WG might find a better consensus on some other
approach.

[...]
> In any event, we won't provide ISATAP again from KAME until we confirm
> the IPR policy of ISATAP meets our basic requirement.

For what it's worth, it might be possible to find some prior art to
invalidate some claims (speaking in general, not about any technology
in particular).  Whether or not that is sufficient for you (or others
in general) is of course an internal matter.  Also, this is often
difficult as the most difficult IPR (claims) is often still in the
application phase, and no details will be known.

One should just be wary of not having any means to analyze the
applicability of IPR (but that's not WG's business, but WG
participants' -- the IETF takes no stance on this).  Because anyone
can *claim* to have some IPR (even if that's not true, or even if the
IPR is bogus), this could be an effective DoS attack on the vendor(s)
and the standardization process.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings