Re: IPR Disclosure: The Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York's Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-nsis-tunnel-13

At 03:35 AM 12/7/2010, Lars Eggert wrote:
>Hi,
>
>I'm sending this email as an individual participant, not in my role as an AD.
>
>On 2010-12-3, at 18:45, Jukka Manner wrote:
> > We need guidance from the working group on how to proceed:
> >
> > a) Do members of the WG accept those terms,
> > b) Do you want to redesign the protocol to work around the IPR,
> > c) Do you want to ask Columbia to modify the terms, or
> > d) Do we drop the document from the WG (authors can still pursue 
> publications through the independent track)?
>
>my preference as an individual participant is option (d).

IMO the easiest answer is for (c) - to ask that CU modify the terms 
of any future standards track version of this document to have the 
same terms as that in the Experimental status.

The most difficult would be (b) - but I believe, at this late stage, 
that's the right alternative if (c) can't be formally worked out.

The next choice is (d), but this will still "get" some implementors 
who didn't read past the "NSIS" part of the doc title/filename to 
read that it didn't come from the NSIS WG, so this choice has pitfalls.

It's hard for me - with a straight face - to go with option (a) 
because of the time involved prior to the IPR disclosure since -00 
(June 2006), especially the time past WGLC (11 months). It's like 
none of the authors paid attention to the NOTE WELL each time they 
presented the ID or looked at the small meeting agenda foldout sheet, 
or signed the blue sheet (or maybe the blue sheets having the NOTE 
WELL in Beijing forced their hand to actually come forward and submit 
the IPR claim?).

James


>Lars
>
>_______________________________________________
>nsis mailing list
>[email protected]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsis