RE: call for consensus on proposed semantic change

At this point, the lawyers have been provided the draft(s) that could
potentially be impacted.  The semantics draft was believed (at this time) to
be related to the potential patent claim; the MIB was not, but since this
discussion also related to the semantics, I felt obligated to make the
statement and since they have not completed the evaluation, I can't actually
make a definitive statement on that. 

Mary

-----Original Message-----
From: Melinda Shore [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Thursday, November 25, 2004 8:29 AM
To: Barnes, Mary [NGC:B601:EXCH]
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [midcom] call for consensus on proposed semantic change


On Wednesday, November 24, 2004, at 11:05 PM, Mary Barnes wrote:
> In order to respond to this "yes"/"no" change to semantics to be 
> reflected in the MIB only, I need to point out, in accordance with RFC 
> 3668, that Nortel Networks may have a patent or patent application 
> that may relate to a Contribution or to a portion of this proposed 
> Internet Draft (draft-ietf-midcom-semantics-08), or may potentially be 
> considered necessary for practicing portion(s) of a resulting IETF 
> Standard based on this proposed standard draft.

Just to be clear, does your IPR claim cover something currently in
the draft?

Thanks,

Melinda

_______________________________________________
midcom mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/midcom