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

Agreed. I think an RFC 1988-style IPR declaration is a good outcome.

Thanks Calvin.

On Dec 15, 2010, at 2:00 AM, Jukka Manner wrote:

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