[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       ipng
Subject:    Re: IPR on draft-ietf-6man-mtu-option
From:       Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter () gmail ! com>
Date:       2021-09-03 21:26:34
Message-ID: 0357d517-3bef-2d26-5af3-d34a26b216e1 () gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

It's not the IETF's job to decide whether or not prior art is relevant. Each \
individual implementer needs to make their own assessment. As RFC3699 says, \
"Applicability: It's Hard to Prove a Negative."

RFC3699 suggests looking mostly at the licensing statement, which in this case is:

"Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory License to All Implementers with Possible \
Royalty/Fee"

That's not generally considered a show-stopper. If it was, we'd have very few \
Proposed Standards in the IETF.

Regards
   Brian

On 03-Sep-21 22:29, otroan@employees.org wrote:
> All,
> 
> As part of the shepherds writeup we need to answer:
> 
> (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, \
> summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. 
> 
> There is an IPR files against this:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?submit=draft&id=draft-ietf-6man-mtu-option
> 
> Patent here:
> https://patents.google.com/patent/CN100459576C/en?oq=CN200510089086
> 
> From my perspective it's hard to see how RFC1063 wouldn't be prior art.
> Any other views regarding this?
> 
> Best regards,
> Ole
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]