I am comfortable with this document moving forward. I have looked at
the Enterasys patents, and it looks to me like they relate to specific
applications (location-based access control and routing), so that they
don't intrude on a general location architecture. With regard to the
Qualcomm disclosure, their reluctance to provide information makes me
a little nervous, but it still seems like this document is abstract
enough that it would be useful in spite of IPR claims on some specific
realizations.
--Richard
On Oct 12, 2010, at 11:58 AM, Richard L. Barnes wrote:
> <hat type="chair"/>
>
> Hey all,
>
> Two IPR disclosures have been filed with regard to draft-ietf-
> geopriv-arch, one from Qualcomm and one from Enterasys:
> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1394/>
> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1402/>
>
> The Qualcomm disclosure relates to an unpublished US patent
> application, so no information is available from the USPTO website.
> Robert and I have asked Qualcomm for further technical details, but
> have not received any. The Enterasys disclosure relates to three
> issued patents.
>
> The question for the group is whether the WG is comfortable moving
> these documents forward given these IPR disclosures. If you have
> thoughts on this question, please send them to the list no later
> than Monday, 18 Oct.
>
> Thanks,
> --Richard
> _______________________________________________
> Geopriv mailing list
> Geopriv@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
