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

Hi Calvin,

Thanks for working strongly to resolve this. Your proposal sounds good 
to me.

Jukka

On 12/14/2010 12:36 AM, Calvin Chu wrote:
> I have Columbia's backing to offer a Cisco style declaration of IPR.
> This declaration may deprecate/take precedence over what was previously
> submitted.
>
> Those that feel strongly about this may email me offline.
>
> As mentioned, I'd like to minimize the stepping of toes at this point
> with the goal of maintaining the draft where it was.  If this is the
> preferred route to do this then I'll plan to resubmit soon.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Calvin Chu
> Senior Licensing Officer
> Columbia Technology Ventures
> http://techventures.columbia.edu
> Tel: (212) 851-4140
> Twitter: cchu
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
> Calvin Chu
> Sent: Friday, December 10, 2010 6:06 PM
> To: Roland Bless
> Cc: Georgios Karagiannis; [email protected]; Jukka Manner
> Subject: Re: [NSIS] IPR Disclosure: The Trustees of Columbia University
> inthe City of New York's Statement about IPRrelated to
> draft-ietf-nsis-tunnel-13
>
> See below, and here.
>
> Currently I've made it a priority to review the Cisco style disclosure
> with Columbia.  In the meantime, it's my priority to work out to the
> satisfaction of the members here to allow this draft to remain.  I am
> working on this.
>
> Calvin Chu
> Senior Licensing Officer
> Columbia Technology Ventures
> http://techventures.columbia.edu
> Tel: (212) 851-4140
> Twitter: cchu
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roland Bless [mailto:[email protected]]
>
> Hi,
>
>> Since we have an open implementation that's fine, but IMHO the
> following
>> cited text is not 100% clear that this is also guaranteed if the
>> specification will once change to standards track. So if you could make
>> it clear that the last point doesn't apply to the open-software and
>> development activities, it would be better.
>
> Regardless of track, if it's open source, then it's FREE.
>
>>> The other point of contention is the FRAND terms in the situation it
>>> becomes a protocol standard, and even then, only in the non-open
> source
>>> case.
>>>
>>> Is the issue: A) The fact that the fee is unknown B) The fact that
> there
>>> is a fee at all or C) desire to see better conformance of disclosure
>>> such as use of the Cisco style IPR disclosure
>
>> I would say B) and A) in that order :-), i.e.
>> if you remove any fee, it would cause no problem, but if you keep
>> the fee, it would be good to say something about it.
>
> I'm looking into the suggestion on the Cisco style IPR disclosure --
> still need about a day or so to get some consensus.
>
> I was earlier under the impression that this RFC was unlikely to exit
> Experimental status so no details were worked out for what that fee may
> be.  It would be unacceptable to us for this fee to prohibit legitimate
> use, except, at the time I entered the disclosure (as well as now), the
> threshold for what would be prohibitive isn't known to me.  The members
> of the list would likely know better than me on these matters.
>
> If it's case (A) above, we can declare a hard upper limit the
> uncertainty is removed from the system.  If (A) is unacceptable at any
> value, in any case, I'm simultaneously passing around the Cisco style
> disclosure.
>
> _______________________________________________
> nsis mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsis

-- 
Jukka MJ Manner, Professor, PhD.  Phone:  +358+(0)9+470 22481
Aalto University                  Mobile: +358+(0)50+5112973
Department of Communications      Fax:    +358+(0)9+470 22474
and Networking (Comnet)           Office: G320a (Otakaari 5A)
P.O. Box 13000, FIN-00076 Aalto   E-mail: [email protected]
Finland                           WWW:    www.comnet.tkk.fi