Michael,
I won’t comment on the content of the application, but please find a couple
clarifications inline.
On Jul 5, 2016, at 7:00 AM, Scharf, Michael (Nokia - DE)
<michael(_dot_)scharf(_at_)nokia(_dot_)com> wrote:
Carlos,
I can only comment on the second document listed in the third-party IPR
disclosure (http://www.google.com/patents/WO2016039798A1#npl-citations). I
have not been aware of the first one. Regarding the second patent
application, I am a bit confused by the intent of this IPR disclosure.
The intent of an IPR disclosure is to inform IETF WGs and participants.
To add some context: There is a publication, and actually that text may be
easier to read:
Michael Scharf, Gordon T. Wilfong, Lisa Zhang: "Sparsifying network
topologies for application guidance", Proceedings of IFIP/IEEE IM 2015, May
2015, pages 234-242 (http://dl.ifip.org/db/conf/im/im2015/135438.pdf)
That paper refers to draft-ietf-alto-deployments at various places to explain
the background of ALTO (reference [4]). So, it is not surprise that
draft-ietf-alto-deployments is cited in the patent application. I am not a
lawyer. However, if I had assumed that an action according to RFC 3979 is
required in this situation, an IPR disclosure would obviously have been
submitted.
In general, draft-ietf-alto-deployments is a long informational document that
surveys quite a number of use cases and technologies. Given that widely used
technologies such as CDN optimization and methods to obtain dynamic
connected-network topology via nodes are mentioned, it would be a huge
surprise to me there was no other IPR "somehow" related to some wording in
draft-ietf-alto-deployments, including e.g. IPR owned by Cisco Technology,
Inc. However, I am not sure what value IPR disclosures have for such an
informational document that does not give normative guidance.
Analysis is for the WG participants and potential implications (if any) to the
WG (i.e., the IETF makes no determination about validity, informed decision,
etc.)
Regarding the process, I am actually surprised that a patent search has been
performed as part of an OPS-DIR review, given e.g. what is written in RFC
5706 Appendix A. And I think the wording of RFC 3979 Section 6.1.3 is that a
third party IPR disclosure is "encouraged". So far I have assumed that this
wording does not imply "mandatory". Maybe the IESG can better explain that?
This comment is concerning to me. I performed an OPS-Dir review of
draft-ietf-alto-deployments based-15 solely on Operational considerations, and
RFC 5706 Appendix A. (By the way, I have not seen a response to that review.)
However, I have *not* (of course!) performed a patent search. I do not
understand the basis of you making that comment. If I am looking for IETF LC
comments on specific operational issues, and Google search serves those hits
over and over (which someone cannot unsee), I think the responsible thing is to
disclose, and it is up for the WG to evaluate.
Thanks,
— Carlos.
Michael
-----Original Message-----
From: Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) [mailto:cpignata(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2016 1:48 AM
To: Mirja Kühlewind
Cc: IETF discussion list; draft-ietf-alto-deployments(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org;
alto(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: [alto] IPR Disclosure Carlos Pignataro's Statement about IPR
related to draft-ietf-alto-deployments belonging to Alcatel Lucent
Hi, Mirja,
One clarification, for the record, inline.
On Jul 4, 2016, at 11:47 AM, Mirja Kühlewind
<mirja(_dot_)kuehlewind(_at_)tik(_dot_)ee(_dot_)ethz(_dot_)ch> wrote:
Hi all,
find below an IPR disclosure that was filed last week related to
draft-ietf-alto-deployments. This is a third-party disclosure for a patent
application that lists this draft as ‚document to be considered related‘.
See:
https://data.epo.org/publication-server/rest/v1.0/publication-dates/20
150902/patents/EP2913979NWA1/document.pdf
The IETF last call for draft-ietf-alto-deployments was performed between
June 7 and June 21, 2016, while the IPR disclosure was submitted afterwards
(as reaction to the OPS-DIR review).
I was actually the OPS-Dir Reviewer assigned to
draft-ietf-alto-deployments-15.
I submitted my OPS-Dir review delayed, after the IETF LC ended, because I was
on vacation (and unreachable) when I received the OPS-Dir review assignment.
As part of my review, as I came across those two (not only the one you
include above) published patent applications potentially relating to the
subject matter as indicated in non-patent citations, I had to submit that 3rd
party disclosure.
Thanks,
— Carlos.
If this disclosure raises any concerns regarding the publication of this
draft as RFC, please state your opinion on the alto(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
mailing.
Thanks,
Mirja - responsible AD
Am 27.06.2016 um 17:42 schrieb IETF Secretariat
<ietf-ipr(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>:
Dear Martin Stiemerling, Sebastian Kiesel, Stefano Previdi, Michael Scharf,
Hans Seidel:
An IPR disclosure that pertains to your Internet-Draft entitled "ALTO
Deployment Considerations" (draft-ietf-alto-deployments) was
submitted to the IETF Secretariat on and has been posted on the
"IETF Page of Intellectual Property Rights Disclosures"
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2814/). The title of the IPR
disclosure is "Carlos Pignataro's Statement about IPR related to
draft-ietf-alto-deployments belonging to Alcatel Lucent"
Thank you
IETF Secretariat
_______________________________________________
alto mailing list
alto(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto