Hi,

Samer said:

> the use of th= e IPR is not mandatory in the draft. It is an optional procedure for a speci= fic error scenario.

That makes me wonder whether the WG would= like to consider another way of handling this specific error scenario, or e= ven simply to remove the optional procedure.

What do people t= hink?

Thanks,

<= span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-se= rif";mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";color:#1F497D">Ad= rian

From:= pwe3-bounces@ietf.org [mailto= :pwe3-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Samer Salam (ssalam)
S= ent: 25 October 2012 17:50
To: Andrew G. Malis; pwe3@ietf.org; draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp@tools.ietf.org
Cc: Stewa= rt Bryant (stbryant)
Subject: Re: [PWE3] Regarding Cisco's Stateme= nt of IPR Related to draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-09

Hi= Andy,

First and foremost we apolog= ize for the late filing, it was an oversight on our part. While there is no e= xcuse for the tardiness, we wish to assure the WG that no foul play was inte= nded. Re-examining the evolution of the document, the procedures related to t= he IPR were added to the draft in a later version ( draft-ietf-pwe3-icc= p-03 to be precise) and not as part of the initial draft, and this is our be= st guess as to why we missed filing the IPR disclosure earlier, and it only c= ame to our attention when we were updating version =E2=80=9309 of the draft,= since the patent was allowed in that same timeframe.

<= /div>

That said, we wish to clarify that the use of the IPR is n= ot mandatory in the draft. It is an optional procedure for a specific error s= cenario. Furthermore, the terms of the IPR are no different from any other f= iled by Cisco under 'reasonable non-discriminatory terms'. <= /span>

Regards,

Samer

From:= "Andrew G. Malis" <andrew.g.malis@verizon.com>
Date: Thursday, October 25,= 2012 8:34 AM
To: "pwe3@ietf.org<= /a>" <pwe3@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp@tools.ietf= .org" <draft-i= etf-pwe3-iccp@tools.ietf.org>
Cc: "Stewart Bryant (stbryant= )" <stbryant@cisco.com>
<= b>Subject: [PWE3] Regarding Cisco's Statement of IPR Related to draft-ie= tf-pwe3-iccp-09

To the PWE3 WG and the authors of draft-i= etf-pwe3-iccp:

PWE3 participants may have noticed the IPR announcemen= t below. This leads to two important questions:

1. The two auth= ors of the IPR were also co-authors on the original draft-martini-pwe3-iccp,= and the patent application was filed almost simultaneously with the publica= tion of the original -00 version of the draft. This leads to the difficult q= uestion of why this IPR wasn't disclosed until now, more than four years aft= er the initial filing and almost three years from the public publication of t= he filing. The chairs would like the authors to respond to the latenes= s of the filing, given the many announcements of the IETF's IPR policy, nota= bly in the draft boilerplate and in the Note Well, and elsewhere as well.
2. The chairs would also like to ask the working group if anyone has an= opinion about how or whether to continue the current WG draft given the dis= closure of the IPR and the license terms that have been published.

Th= anks,
Andy and Matthew
<= span style=3D"font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-se= rif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";color:black">-= --------- Forwarded message ----------
From: IETF Secretariat <= ietf-ipr@ietf.org>
Date: Tue,= Oct 23, 2012 at 4:23 PM
Subject: [PWE3] IPR Disclosure: Cisco's Statemen= t of IPR Related to draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-09
To: sajassi@cisco.com, lma= rtini@cisco.com, ssalam@cisco.com, satoru.matsushima@= tm.softbank.co.jp
Cc: pwe3@ietf.org<= /a>, andrew.g.malis@verizon.co= m, ipr-announce@ietf.org, <= a href=3D"mailto:stbryant@cisco.com">stbryant@cisco.com

Dear Ali S= ajassi, Luca Martini, Samer Salam, Satoru Matsushima:

An IPR di= sclosure that pertains to your Internet-Draft entitled "Inter-Chassis
Com= munication Protocol for L2VPN PE Redundancy" (draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp) was
s= ubmitted to the IETF Secretariat on 2012-10-23 and has been posted on the "I= ETF
Page of Intellectual Property Rights Disclosures"
(https://datatracker.ie= tf.org/ipr/1898/). The title of the IPR disclosure is
"Cisco's Statem= ent of IPR Related to draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-09."");

The IETF Secretari= at

_______________________________________________
pwe3 mailing li= st
pwe3@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.or= g/mailman/listinfo/pwe3
_____________________________= __________________
pwe3 mailing list
pwe3@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo= /pwe3

= --Apple-Mail-9DAB7384-6430-4065-B92E-B958DC959AD8-- From yaakov_s@rad.com Wed Oct 31 01:06:33 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E548721F86ED for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2012 01:06:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.597 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.597 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Y-W97ACU8Xel for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2012 01:06:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rad.co.il (mailrelay02.rad.co.il [62.0.23.237]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9543E21F86E8 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2012 01:06:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from Internal Mail-Server by MailRelay02 (envelope-from yaakov?s@rad.com) with AES128-SHA encrypted SMTP; 31 Oct 2012 09:03:53 +0200 Received: from EXRAD5.ad.rad.co.il ([192.114.24.28]) by EXRAD5.ad.rad.co.il ([192.114.24.28]) with mapi id 14.02.0298.004; Wed, 31 Oct 2012 10:06:15 +0200 From: Yaakov Stein To: "adrian@olddog.co.uk" , "'Andrew G. Malis'" , "pwe3@ietf.org" , "draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp@tools.ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [PWE3] Regarding Cisco's Statement of IPR Related to draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-09 Thread-Index: AQHNssZ2hDULhzINrUWOvzmgdKUXrpfKGoSAgAL1AACABgSFgA== Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 08:06:15 +0000 Message-ID: <07F7D7DED63154409F13298786A2ADC9045E0C74@EXRAD5.ad.rad.co.il> References: <8F25FF8EA49D164EBE5F1B5AD33F3BC90C4161@xmb-aln-x13.cisco.com> <000601cdb44b$4d5ba150$e812e3f0$@olddog.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <000601cdb44b$4d5ba150$e812e3f0$@olddog.co.uk> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [192.115.243.62] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_07F7D7DED63154409F13298786A2ADC9045E0C74EXRAD5adradcoil_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Commtouch-Refid: str=0001.0A090209.5090DBF9.0046,ss=1,fgs=0 Cc: "'Stewart Bryant $stbryant$'" Subject: Re: [PWE3] Regarding Cisco's Statement of IPR Related to draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-09 X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 08:06:34 -0000 --_000_07F7D7DED63154409F13298786A2ADC9045E0C74EXRAD5adradcoil_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Adrian, I support removal of the procedure. Timely disclosure is required if IPR is "essential" for an implementation t= o be compliant with an RFC. Even if the procedure is optional, if it is written up in the RFC it is par= t of the IETF's definition of the behavior, and thus when parties choose to implement that option the = IPR becomes essential. This is not the case of IPR being one way of implementing a described proce= dure. I think that the IPR holders should support removal of the procedure as wel= l, as their lack of disclosure could lead to a patent (if granted) being ruled= unenforceable. Y(J)S From: pwe3-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pwe3-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Adr= ian Farrel Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2012 16:00 To: 'Samer Salam (ssalam)'; 'Andrew G. Malis'; pwe3@ietf.org; draft-ietf-pw= e3-iccp@tools.ietf.org Cc: 'Stewart Bryant (stbryant)' Subject: Re: [PWE3] Regarding Cisco's Statement of IPR Related to draft-iet= f-pwe3-iccp-09 Hi, Samer said: > the use of the IPR is not mandatory in the draft. It is an optional proce= dure for a specific error scenario. That makes me wonder whether the WG would like to consider another way of h= andling this specific error scenario, or even simply to remove the optional= procedure. What do people think? Thanks, Adrian From: pwe3-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pwe3-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Sam= er Salam (ssalam) Sent: 25 October 2012 17:50 To: Andrew G. Malis; pwe3@ietf.org; draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp@tools.ietf.org Cc: Stewart Bryant (stbryant) Subject: Re: [PWE3] Regarding Cisco's Statement of IPR Related to draft-iet= f-pwe3-iccp-09 Hi Andy, First and foremost we apologize for the late filing, it was an oversight on= our part. While there is no excuse for the tardiness, we wish to assure th= e WG that no foul play was intended. Re-examining the evolution of the docu= ment, the procedures related to the IPR were added to the draft in a later = version ( draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-03 to be precise) and not as part of the ini= tial draft, and this is our best guess as to why we missed filing the IPR d= isclosure earlier, and it only came to our attention when we were updating = version -09 of the draft, since the patent was allowed in that same timefra= me. That said, we wish to clarify that the use of the IPR is not mandatory in t= he draft. It is an optional procedure for a specific error scenario. Furthe= rmore, the terms of the IPR are no different from any other filed by Cisco = under 'reasonable non-discriminatory terms'. Regards, Samer From: "Andrew G. Malis" > Date: Thursday, October 25, 2012 8:34 AM To: "pwe3@ietf.org" >, "draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp@tools.ietf.org" > Cc: "Stewart Bryant (stbryant)" > Subject: [PWE3] Regarding Cisco's Statement of IPR Related to draft-ietf-pw= e3-iccp-09 To the PWE3 WG and the authors of draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp: PWE3 participants may have noticed the IPR announcement below. This leads = to two important questions: 1. The two authors of the IPR were also co-authors on the original draft-ma= rtini-pwe3-iccp, and the patent application was filed almost simultaneously= with the publication of the original -00 version of the draft. This leads = to the difficult question of why this IPR wasn't disclosed until now, more = than four years after the initial filing and almost three years from the pu= blic publication of the filing. The chairs would like the authors to respo= nd to the lateness of the filing, given the many announcements of the IETF'= s IPR policy, notably in the draft boilerplate and in the Note Well, and el= sewhere as well. 2. The chairs would also like to ask the working group if anyone has an opi= nion about how or whether to continue the current WG draft given the disclo= sure of the IPR and the license terms that have been published. Thanks, Andy and Matthew ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: IETF Secretariat > Date: Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 4:23 PM Subject: [PWE3] IPR Disclosure: Cisco's Statement of IPR Related to draft-i= etf-pwe3-iccp-09 To: sajassi@cisco.com, lmartini@cisco.com, ssalam@cisco.com, satoru.mats= ushima@tm.softbank.co.jp Cc: pwe3@ietf.org, andrew.g.malis@verizon.com, ipr-announce@ietf.org, stbryant@cisco.com Dear Ali Sajassi, Luca Martini, Samer Salam, Satoru Matsushima: An IPR disclosure that pertains to your Internet-Draft entitled "Inter-Cha= ssis Communication Protocol for L2VPN PE Redundancy" (draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp) was submitted to the IETF Secretariat on 2012-10-23 and has been posted on the = "IETF Page of Intellectual Property Rights Disclosures" (https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1898/). The title of the IPR disclosure i= s "Cisco's Statement of IPR Related to draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-09.""); The IETF Secretariat _______________________________________________ pwe3 mailing list pwe3@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3 --_000_07F7D7DED63154409F13298786A2ADC9045E0C74EXRAD5adradcoil_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Adrian,

I support removal of the procedure.

Timely disclosure is required if IPR is "essential"= ; for an implementation to be compliant with an RFC.

Even if the procedure is optional, if it is written up in th= e RFC it is part of the IETF's definition

of the behavior, and thus when parties choose to implement t= hat option the IPR becomes essential.

This is not the case of IPR being one way of implementing a = described procedure.

I think that the IPR holders should support removal of the p= rocedure as well,

as their lack of disclosure could lead to a patent (if grant= ed) being ruled unenforceable.

Y(J)S

From: pwe3-bou= nces@ietf.org [mailto:pwe3-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel
Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2012 16:00
To: 'Samer Salam (ssalam)'; 'Andrew G. Malis'; pwe3@ietf.org; draft-= ietf-pwe3-iccp@tools.ietf.org
Cc: 'Stewart Bryant (stbryant)'
Subject: Re: [PWE3] Regarding Cisco's Statement of IPR Related to dr= aft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-09

Hi,

Samer said:

> the use of the IPR is not mandatory in the draft. It is= an optional procedure for a specific error scenario.

That makes me wonder whether the WG would like to consider a= nother way of handling this specific error scenario, or even simply to remo= ve the optional procedure.

What do people think?

Thanks,

Adrian

From: pwe3-bou= nces@ietf.org [mailto:pwe3-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Samer Salam (ssalam)
Sent: 25 October 2012 17:50
To: Andrew G. Malis; pwe3@ietf.org; draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp@tools.ietf.= org
Cc: Stewart Bryant (stbryant)
Subject: Re: [PWE3] Regarding Cisco's Statement of IPR Related to dr= aft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-09

Hi Andy,

First and foremost we apologize for the late filing, it was an= oversight on our part. While there is no excuse for the tardiness, we wish= to assure the WG that no foul play was intended. Re-examining the evolution of the d= ocument, the procedures related to the IPR were added to the draft in a lat= er version ( draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-03 to be precise) and not as part of= the initial draft, and this is our best guess as to why we missed filing the IPR disclosure earlier, and it only c= ame to our attention when we were updating version –09 of the draft, = since the patent was allowed in that same timeframe.

That said, we wish to clarify that the use of the IPR is not m= andatory in the draft. It is an optional procedure for a specific error sce= nario. Furthermore, the terms of the IPR are no different from any other filed by= Cisco under 'reasonable non-discriminatory terms'. =

Regards,

Samer

From: "Andrew G. Malis&qu= ot; <andrew.g.malis@verizo= n.com>
Date: Thursday, October 25, 2012 8:34 AM
To: "pwe3@ietf.org" &= lt;pwe3@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp@tools.iet= f.org" <= draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp@tools.ietf.org>
Cc: "Stewart Bryant (stbryant)" <stbryant@cisco.com>
Subject: [PWE3] Regarding Cisco's Statement of IPR Related to draft-= ietf-pwe3-iccp-09

To the PWE3 WG and the authors of draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp:<= br>
PWE3 participants may have noticed the IPR announcement below. This l= eads to two important questions:

1. The two authors of the IPR were also co-authors on the original draft-ma= rtini-pwe3-iccp, and the patent application was filed almost simultaneously= with the publication of the original -00 version of the draft. This leads = to the difficult question of why this IPR wasn't disclosed until now, more than four years after the initia= l filing and almost three years from the public publication of the filing.&= nbsp; The chairs would like the authors to respond to the lateness of the f= iling, given the many announcements of the IETF's IPR policy, notably in the draft boilerplate and in the Note We= ll, and elsewhere as well.

2. The chairs would also like to ask the working group if anyone has an opi= nion about how or whether to continue the current WG draft given the disclo= sure of the IPR and the license terms that have been published.

Thanks,
Andy and Matthew

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: IETF Secretariat <ietf= -ipr@ietf.org>
Date: Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 4:23 PM
Subject: [PWE3] IPR Disclosure: Cisco's Statement of IPR Related to draft-i= etf-pwe3-iccp-09
To: sajassi@cisco.com, lmartini@cisco.com, ssalam@cisco.co= m, satoru.matsushima@tm.softbank.co.jp
Cc: pwe3@ietf.org, andrew.g.malis@verizon.com, ip= r-announce@ietf.org, stbryant@cisco.com

Dear Ali Sajassi, Luca Martini, Samer Salam, Satoru Matsushima:

An IPR disclosure that pertains to your Internet-Draft entitled "= ;Inter-Chassis
Communication Protocol for L2VPN PE Redundancy" (draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp)= was
submitted to the IETF Secretariat on 2012-10-23 and has been posted on the = "IETF
Page of Intellectual Property Rights Disclosures"
(https= ://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1898/). The title of the IPR disclosure is<= br> "Cisco's Statement of IPR Related to draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-09."&qu= ot;);

The IETF Secretariat

_______________________________________________
pwe3 mailing list
pwe3@ietf.org
ht= tps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3

--_000_07F7D7DED63154409F13298786A2ADC9045E0C74EXRAD5adradcoil_-- From ssalam@cisco.com Wed Oct 31 08:43:13 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 040C521F8510 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2012 08:43:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id i97yw70FLmEu for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2012 08:43:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.86.73]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFF7921F8479 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2012 08:43:04 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=30733; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1351698184; x=1352907784; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to: mime-version; bh=Pfot3tZIxvVkoG1xJ1GhDNma/PRVd9AFvuk9UKAOFHM=; b=eAUqFs8ouIisF2kloHd2XOIs5zeB9Mj6wyEnjjDI5i7KlsXSqHacgcTU +7ztsk+U1llmbQfQurrbhYSeKgHejYLkzj9vpXBrMDbJVkv2nYxA5iUVl ZEpgA48XnKGQQ3xDPHYF+8MS+ygZFu5AgHFZPeNF29viSenX9DiRALAyT 8=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgEFAHtGkVCtJV2c/2dsb2JhbABEgkkjwQOBCIIeAQEBAwEBAQEPARpBCwUNAQgRAwEBAQsWAQYuCxQJCAIEAQ0FCBqHUgMJBgEKnDWgEgSLEWeFWmEDpE2Ba4Jvghk X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.80,687,1344211200"; d="scan'208,217";a="137356767" Received: from rcdn-core-5.cisco.com ([173.37.93.156]) by rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 31 Oct 2012 15:43:04 +0000 Received: from xhc-aln-x06.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x06.cisco.com [173.36.12.80]) by rcdn-core-5.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q9VFh396020266 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 31 Oct 2012 15:43:03 GMT Received: from xmb-aln-x13.cisco.com ([fe80::5404:b599:9f57:834b]) by xhc-aln-x06.cisco.com ([173.36.12.80]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.001; Wed, 31 Oct 2012 10:43:03 -0500 From: "Samer Salam (ssalam)" To: Yaakov Stein , "adrian@olddog.co.uk" , "'Andrew G. Malis'" , "pwe3@ietf.org" , "draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp@tools.ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [PWE3] Regarding Cisco's Statement of IPR Related to draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-09 Thread-Index: AQHNt35ljTCpNXKFKEGStecTjqMRdQ== Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 15:42:55 +0000 Message-ID: <8F25FF8EA49D164EBE5F1B5AD33F3BC90D7C1982@xmb-aln-x13.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <07F7D7DED63154409F13298786A2ADC9045E0C74@EXRAD5.ad.rad.co.il> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.3.120616 x-originating-ip: [10.21.73.123] x-tm-as-product-ver: SMEX-10.2.0.1135-7.000.1014-19324.001 x-tm-as-result: No--43.197200-8.000000-31 x-tm-as-user-approved-sender: No x-tm-as-user-blocked-sender: No Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_8F25FF8EA49D164EBE5F1B5AD33F3BC90D7C1982xmbalnx13ciscoc_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "Stewart Bryant $stbryant$" Subject: Re: [PWE3] Regarding Cisco's Statement of IPR Related to draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-09 X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 15:43:13 -0000 --_000_8F25FF8EA49D164EBE5F1B5AD33F3BC90D7C1982xmbalnx13ciscoc_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, To further clarify: two ways of implementing the described procedure were i= dentified in the course of the discussions, one without the IPR and one wit= h. The current draft only captures the latter because it offers better reve= rsion time characteristics (note that failover protection time is comparabl= e for both, it is primarily the reversion time upon recovery that is differ= ent). With the approval of the other co-authors, we would be happy to: 1- Either Capture only the option without the IPR, OR 2- Capture both options with the above tradeoff highlighted Regards, Samer From: Yaakov Stein > Date: Wednesday, October 31, 2012 1:06 AM To: "adrian@olddog.co.uk" >, "'Andrew G. Malis'" >, "pwe3@ietf.org" >, "draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp@tools.ietf.= org" > Cc: "Stewart Bryant (stbryant)" > Subject: RE: [PWE3] Regarding Cisco's Statement of IPR Related to draft-iet= f-pwe3-iccp-09 Resent-From: > Resent-To: >, >, >, > Resent-Date: Wednesday, October 31, 2012 1:06 AM Adrian, I support removal of the procedure. Timely disclosure is required if IPR is "essential" for an implementation t= o be compliant with an RFC. Even if the procedure is optional, if it is written up in the RFC it is par= t of the IETF's definition of the behavior, and thus when parties choose to implement that option the = IPR becomes essential. This is not the case of IPR being one way of implementing a described proce= dure. I think that the IPR holders should support removal of the procedure as wel= l, as their lack of disclosure could lead to a patent (if granted) being ruled= unenforceable. Y(J)S From: pwe3-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pwe3-boun= ces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2012 16:00 To: 'Samer Salam (ssalam)'; 'Andrew G. Malis'; pwe3@ietf.org; draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp@tools.ietf.org Cc: 'Stewart Bryant (stbryant)' Subject: Re: [PWE3] Regarding Cisco's Statement of IPR Related to draft-iet= f-pwe3-iccp-09 Hi, Samer said: > the use of the IPR is not mandatory in the draft. It is an optional proce= dure for a specific error scenario. That makes me wonder whether the WG would like to consider another way of h= andling this specific error scenario, or even simply to remove the optional= procedure. What do people think? Thanks, Adrian From: pwe3-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pwe3-boun= ces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Samer Salam (ssalam) Sent: 25 October 2012 17:50 To: Andrew G. Malis; pwe3@ietf.org; draft-ietf-pwe3-i= ccp@tools.ietf.org Cc: Stewart Bryant (stbryant) Subject: Re: [PWE3] Regarding Cisco's Statement of IPR Related to draft-iet= f-pwe3-iccp-09 Hi Andy, First and foremost we apologize for the late filing, it was an oversight on= our part. While there is no excuse for the tardiness, we wish to assure th= e WG that no foul play was intended. Re-examining the evolution of the docu= ment, the procedures related to the IPR were added to the draft in a later = version ( draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-03 to be precise) and not as part of the ini= tial draft, and this is our best guess as to why we missed filing the IPR d= isclosure earlier, and it only came to our attention when we were updating = version =9609 of the draft, since the patent was allowed in that same timef= rame. That said, we wish to clarify that the use of the IPR is not mandatory in t= he draft. It is an optional procedure for a specific error scenario. Furthe= rmore, the terms of the IPR are no different from any other filed by Cisco = under 'reasonable non-discriminatory terms'. Regards, Samer From: "Andrew G. Malis" > Date: Thursday, October 25, 2012 8:34 AM To: "pwe3@ietf.org" >, "draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp@tools.ietf.org" > Cc: "Stewart Bryant (stbryant)" > Subject: [PWE3] Regarding Cisco's Statement of IPR Related to draft-ietf-pw= e3-iccp-09 To the PWE3 WG and the authors of draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp: PWE3 participants may have noticed the IPR announcement below. This leads = to two important questions: 1. The two authors of the IPR were also co-authors on the original draft-ma= rtini-pwe3-iccp, and the patent application was filed almost simultaneously= with the publication of the original -00 version of the draft. This leads = to the difficult question of why this IPR wasn't disclosed until now, more = than four years after the initial filing and almost three years from the pu= blic publication of the filing. The chairs would like the authors to respo= nd to the lateness of the filing, given the many announcements of the IETF'= s IPR policy, notably in the draft boilerplate and in the Note Well, and el= sewhere as well. 2. The chairs would also like to ask the working group if anyone has an opi= nion about how or whether to continue the current WG draft given the disclo= sure of the IPR and the license terms that have been published. Thanks, Andy and Matthew ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: IETF Secretariat > Date: Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 4:23 PM Subject: [PWE3] IPR Disclosure: Cisco's Statement of IPR Related to draft-i= etf-pwe3-iccp-09 To: sajassi@cisco.com, lmartini@cisco.com, ssalam@cisco.com, satoru.mats= ushima@tm.softbank.co.jp Cc: pwe3@ietf.org, andrew.g.malis@verizon.com, ipr-announce@ietf.org, stbryant@cisco.com Dear Ali Sajassi, Luca Martini, Samer Salam, Satoru Matsushima: An IPR disclosure that pertains to your Internet-Draft entitled "Inter-Cha= ssis Communication Protocol for L2VPN PE Redundancy" (draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp) was submitted to the IETF Secretariat on 2012-10-23 and has been posted on the = "IETF Page of Intellectual Property Rights Disclosures" (https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1898/). The title of the IPR disclosure i= s "Cisco's Statement of IPR Related to draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-09.""); The IETF Secretariat _______________________________________________ pwe3 mailing list pwe3@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3 --_000_8F25FF8EA49D164EBE5F1B5AD33F3BC90D7C1982xmbalnx13ciscoc_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi,

To further clarify: two ways of implementing the described procedure w= ere identified in the course of the discussions, one without the IPR and on= e with. The current draft only captures the latter because it offers better= reversion time characteristics (note that failover protection time is comparable for both, it is primaril= y the reversion time upon recovery that is different). With the approval of= the other co-authors, we would be happy to:

1- Either Capture only the option without the IPR, OR

2- Capture both options with the above tradeoff highlighted

Regards,

Samer

From: Yaakov Stein <yaakov_s@rad.com>
Date: Wednesday, October 31, 2012 1= :06 AM
To: "adrian@olddog.co.uk" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>, "'Andrew G. Malis'" <= andrew.g.malis@verizon.com>, "pwe3@ietf.org" <pwe3@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp@tools.ietf.org&= quot; <draft-ietf= -pwe3-iccp@tools.ietf.org>
Cc: "Stewart Bryant (stbryant)= " <stbryant@cisco.com>=
Subject: RE: [PWE3] Regarding Cisco= 's Statement of IPR Related to draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-09
Resent-From: <yaakov_s@rad.com>
Resent-To: <lmartini@cisco.com>, <sajassi@cisco.com>, <satoru.matsushima@tm.softbank.co.jp>, <ssalam@cisco.com>
Resent-Date: Wednesday, October 31,= 2012 1:06 AM

Adrian,

I support removal of the procedure= .

Timely disclosure is required if I= PR is "essential" for an implementation to be compliant with an R= FC.

Even if the procedure is optional,= if it is written up in the RFC it is part of the IETF's definition

of the behavior, and thus when par= ties choose to implement that option the IPR becomes essential.<= /span>

This is not the case of IPR being = one way of implementing a described procedure.

I think that the IPR holders shoul= d support removal of the procedure as well,

as their lack of disclosure could = lead to a patent (if granted) being ruled unenforceable.<= /p>

Y(J)S

From: pwe3-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pwe3-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel
Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2012 16:00
To: 'Samer Salam (ssalam)'; 'Andrew G. Malis'; pwe3@ietf.org; d= raft-ietf-pwe3-iccp@tools.ietf.org
Cc: 'Stewart Bryant (stbryant)'
Subject: Re: [PWE3] Regarding Cisco's Statement of IPR Related to dr= aft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-09

Hi,

Samer said:

> the use of the= IPR is not mandatory in the draft. It is an optional procedure for a speci= fic error scenario.

That makes me wonde= r whether the WG would like to consider another way of handling this specif= ic error scenario, or even simply to remove the optional procedure.

What do people thin= k?

Thanks,<= /span>

Adrian

From: pwe3-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pwe3-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Samer Salam (ssalam)
Sent: 25 October 2012 17:50
To: Andrew G. Malis; pwe3@ietf.org<= /a>; draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp@tools.ietf.org
Cc: Stewart Bryant (stbryant)
Subject: Re: [PWE3] Regarding Cisco's Statement of IPR Related to dr= aft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-09

Hi Andy,

First and foremost we apolog= ize for the late filing, it was an oversight on our part. While there is no= excuse for the tardiness, we wish to assure the WG that no foul play was intended. Re-examining the evolution o= f the document, the procedures related to the IPR were added to the draft i= n a later version ( draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-03 to be precise) and not as = part of the initial draft, and this is our best guess as to why we missed filing the IPR disclosure earlier, and = it only came to our attention when we were updating version =9609 of the dr= aft, since the patent was allowed in that same timeframe.=

That said, we wish to clarif= y that the use of the IPR is not mandatory in the draft. It is an optional = procedure for a specific error scenario. Furthermore, the terms of the IPR are no different from any other filed by= Cisco under 'reasonable non-discriminatory terms'. =

Regards,

Samer

From: "Andrew G. Malis" <andrew.g.malis@verizon.com>
Date: Thursday, October 25, 2012 8:34 AM
To: "pwe3@ietf.org" &= lt;pwe3@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp@tools.iet= f.org" <= draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp@tools.ietf.org>
Cc: "Stewart Bryant (stbryant)" <stbryant@cisco.com>
Subject: [PWE3] Regarding Cisco's Statement of IPR Related to draft-= ietf-pwe3-iccp-09

---------- Forwarded message= ----------
From: IETF Secretariat <ietf= -ipr@ietf.org>
Date: Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 4:23 PM
Subject: [PWE3] IPR Disclosure: Cisco's Statement of IPR Related to draft-i= etf-pwe3-iccp-09
To: sajassi@cisco.com, lmartini@cisco.com, ssalam@cisco.co= m, satoru.matsushima@tm.softbank.co.jp
Cc: pwe3@ietf.org, andrew.g.malis@verizon.com, ip= r-announce@ietf.org, stbryant@cisco.com

Dear Ali Sajassi, Luca Martini, Samer Salam, Satoru Matsushima:

An IPR disclosure that pertains to your Internet-Draft entitled "= ;Inter-Chassis
Communication Protocol for L2VPN PE Redundancy" (draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp)= was
submitted to the IETF Secretariat on 2012-10-23 and has been posted on the = "IETF
Page of Intellectual Property Rights Disclosures"
(https= ://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1898/). The title of the IPR disclosure is<= br> "Cisco's Statement of IPR Related to draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-09."&qu= ot;);

The IETF Secretariat

_______________________________________________
pwe3 mailing list
pwe3@ietf.org
ht= tps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3