The MPLS WG Archive

[Curtis Villamizar <curtis@fictitious.org>]

In message <829F074A10F98943A218DC363D09C92A019C95DE@w2ksjexg06.ciena.com>, "Pa
n, Ping" writes:
> > -----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 cod
> e 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 w
> e go. Let's... :-)
> 
> Unfortunately, the reality is that this is a commercial industry. People spen
> d a lot and work very hard to find the solution for their customers. When the
> y 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 th
> at have been patented by others. But if their customers ask, they will do any
> way.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> - Ping


Ping,

You obviously worked for IBM too long.  :-)

There is no need to ridicule the suggestion that the IETF do more to
avoid internet-drafts that are intellectual property encumbered.

Two changes that would be a good idea are:

If any draft has unspecified intellectual property restrictions, such
as "patent pending" with no description of what the patent would cover
if granted (there is no access to applications), then the
internet-draft should be held from any advancement until the
restrictions can be fully specified or those portions of the draft
which infringe are removed.

If the party with intellectual property rights is unwilling to provide
licencing at low cost non-discriminitory term, then the IESG should
not advance an internet-draft until those portions of the draft that
infringe are removed.

If you want to try to sell proprietary solutions, go ahead.  If you
want to promote standards and sell a good product that interoperates,
all the better - you will have to keep your product competative
though.  The same protocol document can't be both proprietary and an
open standards, so in that case you have to choose one or the other.

Curtis