Subject: [Tools-discuss] [Inquiry #45800] http://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/MICROSOFT-499.txt

From: " via RT" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 16:39:43 -0500

Dear Keith:

The IPR disclosure that you are referring to, "Microsoft's Patent
Statment pertaining to draft-ietf-dhc-ipv4-autoconfig and
draft-cheshire-ipv4-linklocal," ID #164, was submitted by Microsoft
Corporation on August 3, 2000.  Your inquiry raises three issues that
are actually broader than this particular IPR disclosure.  I will try to
address each one independently.

Issue #1:  The document draft-cheshire-ipv4-linklocal-00.txt, "Dynamic
Configuration of IPv4 link-local addresses," was an independent
submission that expired.  The document
draft-ietf-zeroconf-ipv4-linklocal-17.txt,"Dynamic Configuration of IPv4
Link-Local Addresses," is a working group submission that has just been
published as an RFC.

>From the titles of the two documents, it would appear that they are
related.  However, the Secretariat does not make these decisions.  When
an I-D is published as an RFC, or when one RFC "obsoletes" another RFC,
then the pairs of documents are automatically marked as related in our
systems.  However, if one I-D replaces another I-D (e.g., when an
individual submission is adopted by a working group, and its filename is
changed from "draft-author" to "draft-ietf-wg"), then the only way that
the Secretariat knows that the documents are related is if someone tells
us.  In the case of these two documents, we were not given that
information, and the documents are not marked as related in our systems.
 If they were marked as related in our system, then the IPR disclosure
would be returned when a search is performed for IPR related to either one.

Issue #2: The Secretariat does not update an IPR disclosure unless the
submitter of the original IPR disclosure requests that we do so.  For
example, we do not make judgements about the documents to which
Microsoft's patent No. 6,101,499 applies.  If we know that two documents
are related, then our system will automatically link IPR disclosures
submitted for both documents (see Issue #1 above).

Issue #3: If you believe that Microsoft has IPR in
draft-cheshire-ipv4-linklocal-00.txt due to patent No. 6,101,499, then
you may take action to link the original IPR disclosure to that document
in our system.  All you need do is submit a "third-party" IPR
disclosure.  Go to the "IETF IPR Disclosure Page,"
https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/ipr_disclosure.cgi, click on the
link that says: "Notify the IETF of IPR other than your own," and
complete the template.

Please let us know if you have any additional questions or require
assistance in filing a "third-party" IPR disclosure.

Regards,

Barbara    
----------------------------------------------
> [[email-masked] - Thu Mar 24 14:05:06 2005]:
> 
> The IPR disclosure in http://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/MICROSOFT-499.txt 
> appears to pertain to draft-ietf-zeroconf-ipv4-linklocal-17 ,
> a product of the (former?) IETF zeroconf working group and a candidate 
> for proposed standard status.
> 
> I'm sending this because  U.S. Patent No. 6,101,499 , referred to in
> the disclosure, obviously relates to the above mentioned draft but 
> does not show up under IPR related to the activity of the zeroconf
> working group or of that draft.  It was not obvious as to how to
> correct this using the web-based IPR submission form.
> 
> There may also be a need for IETF document tracking tools to keep
> track of associated IPR so that IPR disclosures can continue to be
> associated with documents across changes in document filenames,
> or when document content is split across multiple documents.
> 
> Keith
> 
> 

_______________________________________________
Tools-discuss mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss

---

From: " via RT" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 18:19:08 -0500

Dear Keith:

Regards,

Barbara