Re: [Idr] Posting of IPR Disclosure for draft-ietf-idr-flow-spec

[John Leslie <john at jlc.net>]

Thomas Narten <narten at us.ibm.com> wrote:
> 
> FWIW, I believe that this document cannot and should not be advanced
> unless the WG explicitly goes on record as stating that even with the
> recent IPR disclosure, they still want to publish as a PS.

   I wouldn't demand quite that much, but I must urge the IESG not to
approve it _today_.

   The IPR disclosure clearly indicates that royalties might me charged;
and I am unable to find the patent application on the patent office site.

> Silence cannot be interpreted as approval.

   I agree. We have typically been dominated by corporations that will
not find RAND to be a problem, but there are at least two "free"
implementations of BGP in use that would be unable to pay royalties.

   If the WG chooses to say that the benefit exceeds that expense,
we need to say so clearly and publicly.

--
John Leslie <john at jlc.net>