Re: IPR notice regarding draft-ietf-zeroconf-IPv4-linklocal

On Wed, 5 May 2004 8:35 am, Erik Guttman wrote:
> The WG needs to be take this IPR (and the provided licensing terms)
> into consideration and decide how or whether this new IPR issue in
> anyway changes the WG's previous decision to request that the IESG
> publish the zeroconf document as PS.  Note: the IESG's earlier concerns
> with this document have been resolved.  According to the IESG the main
> remaining hurdle to having this document approved/published is the IPR
> issue that just came up.
Can the WG chairs identify, or request Apple to identify, the specific claims 
that alleged to be applicable in each patent?

I am opposed to any Proposed Standard that requires RAND licensing. Apple can 
update it to reflect their proprietary "standard" and release it as an 
Informational RFC if they wish.

Brad