IETF #42 WG Minutes OPS Area; PTOPOMIB WG Chicago, IL August 25, 1998 WG Chair: Ken Jones (Ken_Jones@BayNetworks.com) Minutes: Andy Bierman (abierman@cisco.com) Review Material: [1] Physical Topology MIB [2] Physical Topology Discovery Protocol and MIB Agenda: 1. Agenda Review 2. Discussion of IBM patent disclosure issues 3. WG Last Call discussion Executive Summary: The working group is almost finished with the two drafts in progress ([1] and [2]). A "WG Last Call" was supposed to be issued on these drafts four months ago, but IBM announced to the WG mailing list that IBM considered the PTOPO work to be in violation of one of their patents. Since then, the WG has been trying to determine the best way to proceed. 1) Agenda Review There were no changes made to the agenda. 2) Discussion of IBM patent disclosure issues On April 29, 1998, John Tavs of IBM announced to the PTOPOMIB mailing list that IBM believes the PTOPO work ([1] and [2]) to infringe on a Network Device Information Exchange patent (U.S. patent #5276440). In accordance with IETF procedures, IBM has announced its intent to enforce this patent, and its intent to license the "PTOPO technology" in a non-discriminatory manner. Harald Alvestrand presented some background material on the IETF's position on encumbered technology, and explained the options open to the WG. John Tavs presented the IBM position at the WG meeting. The WG spent some time debating the merits of the IBM patent. Since none of the WG members present were qualified attorneys, this discussion was not particularly useful, and therefore none of these comments are documented in the minutes. The WG was presented with 3 options, and an informal "straw-poll" was conducted. 1) Disband the WG 3 votes -- very few members felt the work should be terminated. 2) Publish the drafts with the disclaimers as specified in RFC 2026, section 10.3.2 and 10.4. The WG will have to demonstrate that at least two separate compliant implementations exist, and the vendors of each have properly resolved the patent infringement issue with IBM. 12 votes; this option allows the WG to complete its charter quickly, and was the most popular. The WG Chair conducted another straw-poll at this point: a) how many plan to implement the PTOPO MIB [1] within 12 - 18 months? Answer: 8 b) b) how many plan to implement PDP [2] within 12 - 18 months? Answer: 1 3) Attempt to change the drafts so they do not conflict with the patent. 0 votes; WG doesn't know what (if anything) needs to be changed. IBM is not willing to discuss possible changes to the PTOPO technology with the WG, so this option was not seen as practical. Also, many WG members do not believe the patent has merit, and do not wish to change the technology because of it. The WG decided on (2). The documents will be updated with the proper IETF notices, as defined in RFC 2036, and re-published. 4) WG Last Call discussion There is an open issue for the PDP spec [2], related to the specific MAC address and EtherType value used to identify PDP packets. At the last meeting, the WG decided to issue a WG Last Call on the drafts, even though these details have not been finalized. The WG Chair is expected to issue a WG Last Call for both drafts, after they are re-published.