><hat type="individual"/>
>
>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.
It's hard to feel comfortable about the unknown.
James
>--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The Qualcomm disclosure relates to an unpublished US patent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
_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
