The MPLS WG Archive

["Pan, Ping" <ppan@Ciena.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Erblichs [mailto:erblichs@earthlink.net] 
> Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2004 10:54 PM
> To: curtis@fictitious.org
> Cc: Naiming Shen; mpls@UU.NET; Pan, Ping; 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.
> 

I would like to agree with you, but why stop there? Let's open the source code on all routers. Let's make every router vendor to be non-profitable. Let's only work for the good of humanity. Let's pay for IETF ourselves every time we go. Let's... :-)

Unfortunately, the reality is that this is a commercial industry. People spend a lot and work very hard to find the solution for their customers. When they do, they want to make sure that they are providing something unique to the customers, at least for a while. They will try not to implement the things that have been patented by others. But if their customers ask, they will do anyway.

Thanks!

- Ping