The MPLS WG Archive

[Erblichs <erblichs@earthlink.net>]

Yes, I agree partly...

Source code is not neccessary for routers to be compatible
with each other. RFCs are. If a RFC is accepted that requires
licensing the technology, then at least some routers will
never support that technology because of the licensing, IMO. 
This tends to place blackholes within compatibility of the
routers implimenting requirements.

What happens if John Moy were to place the OSPF RFCs with
licence restrictions?

Companies make a profit with their expertise in implimenting
technology features, marketing them, etc, and not placing IP
restrictions within IETF docs, IMO.

I do believe in the past that I "liked" the Informational
RFC to provide that some technology was developed
and could be licensed. This is vs a "Standards Track" RFC
where there should be no licensing concerns and asking for
public comment.

Isn't comments to modify wording or improve on the implimentation
illogical as to force the implimentation into the public
domain and invalidate the specific property rights? 

Or everyone that comments are given "free perpetual licencing"
and Tablarasa subrights theirs to the IETF/public for no charge.

Thus, Tablarasa Networks specifies that if the following changes
are made, they are "owned by the public and the IETF standard
licencing clause is in effect".

	6. RSVP Bypass Nexthop Object

		2nd sentence: "neighbor does not aware" ->
		   "neighbor is not aware"

		3rd sentence: ""to accept with an alternative" ->
		    "to accept an alternative"

	bit numbering..

		Isn't the rightmost numbering of bits to start at
		the 0 bit.

		thus bits "1" -> "0"

		and bit "2" -> "1"

		Or do you really wish to leave bit "0" unused.

	I also propose that the IETF, the public public support
	dealing with these bits a implimentation to support the
	addition of NACKs from the base "Request/Ack" support.

	So, if part or the whole of the short list of comments above
	are accepted by the authors / representatives of their
	respective companies, then their is an implied acceptance to
	modification of the their companies IP rights.

	Further comments/suggestions are withheld... :-)

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




"Pan, Ping" wrote:
> 
> > -----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