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

On 5/6/04 5:18 AM, "Brad Hards" <[email protected]> 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.

Before we get too worried about something that may or may not happen, what
is the history of similar circumstances and how has it played out? (I'd be
surprised if this is the first time this has happened)

john

-- 
If, while chugging a beer, the phrase, ³I bet this is going to be the last
coherent thought I have tonight,² runs through your head, get someone to
take you home. Now.