From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.toke.dk (mail.toke.dk [IPv6:2a00:7660:6da:2001::664]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F1C9C3CB37 for ; Fri, 26 Jul 2019 11:29:36 -0400 (EDT) From: Toke =?utf-8?Q?H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen?= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=toke.dk; s=20161023; t=1564154975; bh=YbXidzO8DbWNzEDMB2yiiarfPwiZDC09BxVFeFJJg6E=; h=From:To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=rjORQEyI/9f0U7uHop32wKJCauF6qe4TLKlK7jm1cL/DpFeUh7sjd4uAKMS+M0++X kkuOOb3yCLGD4xERg/1ZuavpmTO8ka2Y6oJ3X+DgGO1eVdRsXNuz707CG/aBEd34jV dcwcqSqOrryw6haFt96QGeiJlhczKa5VUO1GN1sFZA1cBcjLkJlCPA71jDESMQKocY I7rLdh6qnmCi2igzCEgYcNVyPiBH0vDwbGiO/VllMl0wrzndh/Edb516Va8i4/OUc4 Lrv9SSba3Qwj7xECZNGCYnx4hJgxho7PWqLbhYtwwQZOAwdtkFRSwpU8Cw9v2SOj5e QLiANDb2ksY/A== To: Jonathan Morton , ECN-Sane In-Reply-To: <4A8441BC-FC6C-48EC-9866-BB61E12BF7C2@gmail.com> References: <4A8441BC-FC6C-48EC-9866-BB61E12BF7C2@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2019 17:29:33 +0200 X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett Message-ID: <8736isyftu.fsf@toke.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Subject: Re: [Ecn-sane] L4S Last Call session X-BeenThere: ecn-sane@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of explicit congestion notification's impact on the Internet List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2019 15:29:37 -0000 Jonathan Morton writes: > I thought it wise to note here, for the information of interested > parties, that a hearing on L4S' WGLC will take place during the > opening of today's TSVWG session. The discussion points raised in > advance are summarised in these slides prepared by David Black: > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/105/materials/slides-105-tsvwg-sessa-5-l4s-discussion-01 > > Pete, Rod and I will of course be present, and we plan to raise > several of these points in detail. I believe it is also possible to > raise points from this list remotely. I think some people here are > particularly interested in the final point on the list, about IPR. Sadly the timing doesn't work out for remote participation for me. As for the L4S IPR claims, I believe (after consultation with the Red Hat legal council) the back-and-forth on the list have improved matters somewhat by clarifying that there's a FRAND fallback to lessen the leverage afforded by the termination clause. What this means is that the IPR claim is now on par with what there's precedence for in IETF working groups. As for open source, though, I'm not sure that's enough. For Linux, any remaining concerns could be cleared up by an updated upstream submission by the patent holder, with a clear acknowledgement of the GPLv2 patent grant. I plan to run this by the Red Hat council as well if and when such a submission appears. I don't feel competent to comment on where this leaves the BSDs (and other non-GPL open source projects)... -Toke