Re: Informational RFC to be: draft-carroll-dynmobileip-cdma-00.txt

[Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>]

Frank Quick <fquick@qualcomm.com> writes:

> Thanks for the pointer to the new draft.  Its language is a lot clearer 
> than the current wording.

> Since our draft is not based on any other standards document, we may be 
> able to agree to use the first of the statements without requiring heavy 
> legal review, provided that it is clear that saying "all provisions of 
> Section 10" does not inadvertently incorporate the provisions that relate 
> to standards-track RFCs only.  (I.e., for an Informational RFC 10.3.2 does 
> not apply.)  Is that interpretation correct?

I'm hesitant to give such an opinion, as the issues with regards to
copyright, IPR may be interpreted differently by different folks, and
how they interpret the specific words in the relevant RFCs.

Having said that, I _think_ that you shouldn't have any issues, so
long as you disclose any IPR associated with the ID, which you seem to
be willing to do, as there already is a section in the document that
talks about IPR that has been applied for.

Also, am I  correct in assuming that this is a Verizon-specific
document? That is:

  - does this describe something that has already been deployed? If
    so, by whom and how widely?

  - Is this something that is Verizon-specific? Are other operators
    using it (or planning on using it)? If Verizon-specific, it would
    be customary to change the title to make this more clear.

Finally, this document seems to be of interest to folk in the Mobile
IP WGs. For example, the chairs have (or want) to review it and have
some questions comments on it. How interested are you in having the
document reviewed, e.g., in the mip4 WG? How willing would you to
update the document in response to commments? E.g., is this work
already finished and is there (in practice) no desire to update the
document, or would reviews be taken into consideration for a possible
revision?

Note: the comments I've seen have been generally positive and think
this is probably useful to publish, but its also generating a
discussion as to whether this is sufficient and/or whether followup
work woudl also be warranted...

Thomas