The MPLS WG Archive

["Vishal Sharma" <vsharma87@yahoo.com>]

Jim,

I think this IP statement is incorrect and needs to either be
removed or modified. I do not think that there is any
specific statement on the page you reference that this IP
statement actually refers to. (We somehow put this in a long
time ago, probably erroneously, and it has stuck, so far.)

In fact, I need to ask the Chairs and/or ADs about which
IP statement (if any) we should put there. The only patents
that I am aware of that relate somewhat to the terminology
defined in this draft were filed earlier this year with the
US PTO by Tellabs. (They actually pertain to the Chang 
mechanism draft, and their only relationship to anything in
the framework draft is by way of the terminology.)
In this case, what are we obligated to do? Do we need any
statement, or is none needed?
(If Nortel has some patents that somehow relate to the 
material in this draft, I'll leave it to my Nortel co-authors
to comment.)

-Vishal

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-mpls@UU.NET [mailto:owner-mpls@UU.NET]On Behalf Of Jim Boyle
Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2001 5:23 PM
To: George Swallow
Cc: mpls@UU.NET; vijay@cosinecom.com
Subject: Re: Last call on recovery framework



I'm having trouble identifying the IP statement at

http://www.ietf.org/ipr.html

that section 7 (intellection property) references.

Can one of the authors provide a clarification?

Jim



On Tue, 21 Aug 2001, George Swallow wrote:

> This message begins a last call on
>
>       Framework for MPLS-based Recovery
>       <draft-ietf-mpls-recovery-frmwrk-02.txt>
>
> The last call ends on Sept 5 at midnight GMT.
>
> ...George
>
>
> ======================================================================
> George Swallow       Cisco Systems                   (978) 244-8143
>                      250 Apollo Drive
>                      Chelmsford, Ma 01824
>
>

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com