Re: vrrp and IPR

["Steven M. Bellovin" <smb@research.att.com>]

In message <33151206994.20031030232823@psg.com>, Alex Zinin writes:
>Harald, et al
>

>     
> 3. The situation with the VRRP case can be briefly described as
>    follows:
>
>      a) the latest IPR statement from the patent holder is available at--
>          http://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/cisco-ipr-draft-ietf-vrrp-spec-v2.txt
>         --and complies to the RND terms.
>
>      b) in the only case known to Scott, where the patent holder used
>         the patent, it used it defensively (the Alcatel case)
>
>         /* A.Z. on the other hand, the Huawei case could be
>            considered an example of an offensive use */
>
>      c) there are multiple (a lot) of implementations of VRRP
>
>      d) many (if not all) of them did not conclude that licensing
>         was required
>
>    Based on the above, he believes the presumption still stands.
>
>An important thing here is that we have a lot (clearly more than two
>required by the process) of implementations and the vast majority of
>them did not acquire the license (can't say all, of course). For us
>'did not conclude licensing was required' is the same as 'licensed
>under reasonable and non-discriminatory terms'. So, it seems to me
>that we should not request the licensing statements in the report, and
>"instead apply the normal requirements for the advancement of Internet
>Standards"

Can I make this part public?  The NetBSD folk are trying to decide what 
to to about VRRP.

		--Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb