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

Speaking as an individual (without the co-chair's hat), I agree with 
this view and would support option (d), too.

Jukka

On 12/08/2010 11:40 AM, Lars Eggert wrote:
> On 2010-12-7, at 11:35, Lars Eggert wrote:
>> my preference as an individual participant is option (d).
>
> I should maybe outline my rationale here a bit more.
>
> The nsis-tunnel document is peripheral to the suite of NSIS documents. The only documents that refers to it is applicability-mobility-signaling, and that is an Informative reference; plus applicability-mobility-signaling itself is Informational.
>
> A minor revision to applicability-mobility-signaling could remove that Informative reference and the few sentences of associated text. Or, we could even publish applicability-mobility-signaling as-is, since an Informative reference to an ID is OK. It will not delay publication.
>
> The option I least prefer is "b) (...) redesign the protocol to work around the IPR". The NSIS WG has neither the activity level to see this through, nor has the NSIS protocol suite itself seen deployments to the degree that would warrant investing the energy - NSIS tunneling is at best of minor interest.
>
> We should simply drop the work item and be done with it. The authors can pursue publication on the Independent stream, i.e., directly through the RFC Editor.
>
> Lars
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> nsis mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsis