The MPLS WG Archive

[Curtis Villamizar <curtis@workhorse.fictitious.org>]

In message <10169FC9AB71D940902FE7EBE7109AA909C58B@rs-sc-exc4.rs.riverstonenet.
com>, "Ray Qiu" writes:
> Curtis,
> 
> Thanks for the info.  I am not worried about any legal. :-)
> 
> I was just feeling weird that such thing could happen to  an IETF working gro
> up 
> document.  I thought the goal at IETF is providing solutions to public intern
> et 
> communities.  Anyway...
> 
> Will all the drafts/RFCs start putting such a paragraph in the document from
> now on? :-)
> 
> Ray


It might be worth considering writing an independent document based on
known prior work and ideas and eliminating any doubt.  Its not like
ping is a new idea or there is anything new or unique in LSP ping that
we can't do without.  If I thought there was anything on which a valid
Intellectual Property claim could be made, I'd be worried.  What could
be new - a packet with a timestamp in it?  Ping itself?  If the patent
is narrow enough to stand it is easily avoided, broad enough to not be
avoided, easily knocked down due to prior work.  Again, I'm not a
lawyer so ignore me.

I certainly hope the trend toward Intellectual Property notes in
internet-drafts reverses.  (I also wish Intellectual Property and
Internet Protocol didn't both end up with the IP acronym, but there
are some things we just have to live with).

Curtis