[..] Benoit Claise <bclaise@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > What you're proposing is something that Cisco has been thinking about for more than 6 months now. > Actually we filled in a patent on that one. Because you proposed the idea, we worked on the creation of a new draft > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-claise-ipfix-export-per-sctp-stream-00.txt: <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-claise-ipfix-export-per-sctp-stream-00.txt> fully explaining the idea > We also posted an IPR: see https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/ipr_list.cgi: <https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/ipr_list.cgi> . > The title of the IPR disclosure is "Cisco's Statement about IPR claimed in draft-claise-ipfix-export-per-sctp-stream-00.txt." > Alternatively, directly look up http://www1.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/cisco-ipr-draft-claise-ipfix-export-per-sctp-stream-00.txt: <http://www1.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/cisco-ipr-draft-claise-ipfix-export-per-sctp-stream-00.txt> (The above long formatted lines are not mine, 72 is a nice limit FYI) Sorry to be blunt, but what exactly is the point again of 'opening up NetFlow' if there is going to be IPR stuff being smacked upon IPFIX and thus encumbering it? And no the "we don't sue when you don't sue" sillyness is not 'open'. If there is IPR on this part of IPFIX then it MUST never become part of the standard of IPFIX that is to be the IETF version of NetFlow. The "Disclosure" http://www1.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/cisco-ipr-draft-claise-ipfix-export-per-sctp-stream-00.txt doesn't contain *ANY* details on what exactly is IPR'd and what not. So do we just have to assume that everything in that draft is encumbered? I also have to note that the existing IPFIX capable collectors actually can't care so much about what exactly gets delivered and how and in which stream exactly the IPFIX packets are being sent, I am very sure that the collectors that already exist are automatically prior art to what is described in the draft document, therefor nullifying at least half of the draft. I am sincerely wondering _why_ Cisco is first going the long route of trying to get an IETF, and thus widely open accepted, standard form of NetFlow, thus making all kinds of vendors, who are still reluctant to use NetFlow because of IPR nonsense, happy and then suddenly, after a long time of getting people to accept it as a standard means, still yet again go the IPR route to go back to square zero: no vendor will accept IPFIX, and there will be various different kinds of "NetFlow" for doing traffic, and other kinds of, metering. Please, please, please, come up with something which actually is original, get a patent for that and make your lawyers happy sueing each other over those things. Don't go back to encumber something that is actually starting to get adopted by a lot of vendors. Greets, Jeroen (before anybody screams murder, of course like anything IETFish should be, this is my private & personal opinion bla bla...)
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf