The MPLS WG Archive

["Jonathan Natale" <jnatale@avici.com>]

ditto

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-mpls@UU.NET [mailto:owner-mpls@UU.NET]On Behalf Of Erblichs
> Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2004 1:54 AM
> To: curtis@fictitious.org
> Cc: Naiming Shen; mpls@UU.NET; ppan@ciena.com; enke@redback.com;
> tian@redback.com
> Subject: Re: discussion on nexthop fast-reroute drafts
> 
> 
> 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