Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > On 2007-05-23 14:19, Jeroen Massar wrote: > ... >>> Alternatively, directly look up 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? > > It's a defensive non-assert disclosure, which IMHO is equivalent to RF > for anyone who plays nicely. Actually a defensive non-assert may > indirectly *protect* a normal implementor, when you think about its > impact on a third party implementor who does try to assert a patent. Such clauses may be acceptable when we know what the patent is, and what it covers, but this refer to unpublished patent applications. This particular license also explicitly enable Cisco to collect retroactive royalties against anyone who sues Cisco over _any_ patent. I don't believe these are acceptable terms for a Standards Track document. I believe it should be possible to implement a standards track RFC and be able to sue Cisco if they clearly infringe on your patents. If you agree with this notion, I don't see how you can reach a conclusion that these terms are good. /Simon _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf