The MPLS WG Archive

[Erblichs <erblichs@earthlink.net>]

Interesting...

I remember reading in a few RFCs, ex 3478 Graceful Restart
Mechanism for Label Distribution Protocol by Juniper and
Redback Feb 2003, that "IETF has been notified of Intellectural
Property rights ...."

So, this has not prevented docs being accepted that restrict
compatibility in the past without licensing.

I just wonder if people realize why different implimentations
don't communicate because of these items or why some routers just 
ignore certain functionality that is specified in some RFCs.

So, if my opinion means anything, I would second this rejection
for ALL docs with this type of clause.

Mitchell Erblich
Tablarasa Networks
----------------

Curtis Villamizar wrote:
> 
> In message <200404052214.PAA24523@redback.com>, Naiming Shen writes:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > We presented the below two drafts in Seoul ietf, and we would like
> > them to be discussed more on this mailing alias. The authors would
> > like to move them into WG documents. We are very interested in any
> > comments on them.
> >
> > draft-shen-nhop-fastreroute-00.txt
> > draft-shen-mpls-ldp-nnhop-label-00.txt
> >
> > thanks.
> > - Naiming
> 
> I'd say reject them both on the basis that they contain the following
> statement.
> 
>   7. Intellectual Property Considerations
> 
>    Redback Networks may have intellectual property rights claimed in
>    regard to some of the specification contained in this document.
> 
> We can't be moving things to standards which are encumbered by
> intellectual property restrictions.
> 
> Curtis