This is good, as this is more specific.Benoit, There is a more recent and specific IP statement from AT&T that will be referred to in the next version of the framework draft: http://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/att-ipr-draft-ietf-psamp-framework.txt
However, shouldn't you mention to which hashing/filtering/sampling technique(s) your IPR refers.
Very good.Concerning other assertions of IP rights, I was referring to the following psamp specific statement from Cisco, which will also be referred to in the next version: http://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/cisco-ipr-draft-ietf-psamp-protocol.txt
Nick-----Original Message----- From: Benoit Claise [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2004 9:30 PM To: psamp Subject: Intellectual Property Statement for the sampling techniquesdraftHi, During his session, Nick Duffield mentioned that he wrote an IPRsectionin the sampling techniques draft, and that potentially we might needonefor NetFlow. I started to investigate and this leads me to this question. The IPR statement is pretty vague, specifically if I follow the link 10. Intellectual Property Statement AT&T Corporation may own intellectual property applicable to this contribution. The IETF has been notified of AT&T's licensing intent for the specification contained in this document. See http://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/ATT-GENERAL.txt for AT&T's IPR statement. Should we specify exactly which method(s) AT&T has got a patent for?Andwhat is the patent number? For example, the NetFlow IPR is pretty unambiguous. http://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/cisco-claise-netflow.txt Thanks for shedding some light. Regards, Benoit. -- to unsubscribe send a message to email@example.com with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/psamp/>