Bill Cunningham | 2 Jan 02:47 2003
Picon

pptp

Anybody know off hand what the rfc number for PPTP is? The rfc editor is
being stubborn at www.rfc-editor.org and refuses to show me the rfc, it
thinks it doesn't exist.

Archie Cobbs | 2 Jan 03:08 2003

Re: pptp

Bill Cunningham wrote:
> Anybody know off hand what the rfc number for PPTP is? The rfc editor is
> being stubborn at www.rfc-editor.org and refuses to show me the rfc, it
> thinks it doesn't exist.

RFC 2637:

   http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2637.txt

-Archie

__________________________________________________________________________
Archie Cobbs     *     Packet Design     *     http://www.packetdesign.com

William Allen Simpson | 3 Jan 19:54 2003

Re: PPP L2TP legal status

James Carlson wrote:
> 
> Glen Zorn writes:
> > L2TP is is sole subject of RFC 2661.  Cisco holds no IPR WRT L2TP, nor does
> > it license it to or from anybody.
> 
> I would very much like to hear a clear statement from Cisco's lawyers
> on this subject.  The last such public communication that I know of
> was this one:
> 
>         http://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/CISCO-L2TP
> 
> This certainly leaves the situation a lot less clear than you seem to
> be indicating, at least to me.
> 
> For what it's worth, I personally know several folks who've been
> contacted by lawyers involved in L2TP IPR litigation (including
> myself), and who are thus quite adverse to implementing any part of
> that standard for that reason.  Talking to lawyers about IPR is not an
> enjoyable part of the job.  If Cisco is not pursuing these claims,
> then I think that'd be wonderful news to make known more widely so
> that the standard can become more widely used.
> 
I believe that it is public knowledge (and not in violation of any NDA) 
that Cisco has been pursuing claims against Alcatel for over 3 years now.  

The case has passed factual discovery, is in expert depositions, and is 
expected to go to trial in the near future. 
--

-- 
William Allen Simpson
(Continue reading)

Dennis Ferguson | 3 Jan 21:54 2003
Picon

Re: PPP

Frank Cusack wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 27, 2002 at 10:00:33PM -0500, Barney Wolff wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 27, 2002 at 06:45:10PM -0800, Frank Cusack wrote:
> > > 
> > > PPTP is not proprietary.  L2TP is, though.
> > 
> > You seem to have a very odd definition of proprietary.  Both protocols
> > are published, but PPTP is strictly under Microsoft's control, while
> > L2TP is a standards-track IETF effort.  If sourceforge is your criterion,
> > both protocols are there.
> 
> Yes, I guess I'm using a different (incorrect) definition of proprietary.
> What I really meant was, PPTP is freely implementable.  L2TP is not.
> 
> I can write and publish an implementation of PPTP, without being beholden
> to Microsoft whereas I must license L2TP from Cisco.  Of course, please
> correct me if Cisco has granted no-cost license terms to anyone for L2TP.

I don't think the latter paragraphs describe the situation.  Cisco has
a patent which mentions neither PPTP nor L2TP, but which patents an
application for which either PPTP or L2TP might be used.  As such the
patent, if it applies at all, applies equally to PPTP and L2TP when
either is used for the application described in the patent's claims.
PPTP is no less encumbered by this patent than L2TP.

What this amounts to is that if your use of PPTP doesn't infringe on this
patent then using L2TP for the same thing won't either, while if your
use of L2TP does infringe on this patent then changing the protocol
to PPTP won't save you.  The patent provides no particular reason to
prefer one protocol over the other since, for applications which
(Continue reading)

Frank Cusack | 4 Jan 10:50 2003

Re: PPP

On Fri, Jan 03, 2003 at 12:54:34PM -0800, Dennis Ferguson wrote:
> If I had to guess (I'm far from a lawyer) I suspect the patent claims
> apply not at all when the implementation does what RFC 3193 defines to
> be "Voluntary Tunneling", with the (LAC,PAC) residing on the client
> machine, but may apply when the implementation does "Compulsory
> Tunneling" with the LAC residing in the NAS.

Is it possible to implement a LNS which can only terminate voluntary
mode tunnels?

> It is getting progressively harder to do anything at all without
> the risk of running afoul with someone's lawyers

:~(

/fc

Glen Zorn | 4 Jan 21:15 2003
Picon

RE: PPP

> On Fri, Jan 03, 2003 at 12:54:34PM -0800, Dennis Ferguson wrote:
> > If I had to guess (I'm far from a lawyer) I suspect the patent claims
> > apply not at all when the implementation does what RFC 3193 defines to
> > be "Voluntary Tunneling", with the (LAC,PAC) residing on the client
> > machine, but may apply when the implementation does "Compulsory
> > Tunneling" with the LAC residing in the NAS.
>
> Is it possible to implement a LNS which can only terminate voluntary
> mode tunnels?
>
> > It is getting progressively harder to do anything at all without
> > the risk of running afoul with someone's lawyers
>
> :~(

As I understand it, it's actually very easy to avoid running afoul of
Cisco's patent lawyers: just don't sue Cisco over your own IPR.  I am
obviously not a lawyer, either., but AFAIK Cisco only uses its patents in a
defensive manner, as is the case w/Alcatel.

>
> /fc
>
>

Harry Lewis | 9 Jan 18:50 2003
Picon

PWG-ANNOUNCE> June/July Meeting


It was pointed out in December that our current July (14-18 Vancouver, BC) schedule conflicts with an IETF meeting in Vienna. We don't have a great deal of IETF overlap, but we're attempting to avoid the conflict if possible. We tool a poll in December which slightly favored July 21 vs. June 16. During that poll, however, I received feedback that we should look at the week of June 23. I had originally thought that the end of this week was too close to the 4th of July.

I'll ask one more time - please vote - (no vote = don't care)

June 23-27
vs
July 21-25

I'll tally votes on Jan 16 and this topic will be put to rest at the plenary on Jan 21.  
----------------------------------------------
Harry Lewis
IBM Printing Systems
----------------------------------------------
Harry Lewis | 10 Jan 00:23 2003
Picon

PWG-ANNOUNCE> LAST CALL for PWG PROPOSED IPP "-actual" attributes


Per the PWG process, this is a LAST CALL for the Printer Working Group Proposed Standard for Internet Printing Protocol (IPP):"-actual" attributes.

Comments will be accepted until 2200 GMT (5pm in NYC) on Jan 30, 2003. After addressing comments from the last call, a VOTE will determine formal approval for moving this document to PROPOSED status on the PWG standards track.

DO NOT send comments to pwg-announce. Please discuss your last call comments at " pwg-ipp <at> pwg.org ". Please be sure you are subscribed to this e-mail list which is different from the IETF IPP list.

You can find the last call versions at

ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/new_ACT/pwg-ipp-actual-attrs-v03-021216.pdf
ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/new_ACT/pwg-ipp-actual-attrs-v03-021216.doc

----------------------------------------------
Harry Lewis
Chairman - ISTO Printer Working Group
IBM Printing Systems
----------------------------------------------
Farrell, Lee | 14 Jan 21:06 2003
Picon

RE: PWG-ANNOUNCE> June/July Meeting

June 23 is better for me.
 

===========================
Lee Farrell
Canon Development Americas
110 Innovation Drive
Irvine, CA  92612
(949) 856-7163 - voice
(949) 856-7510 - fax
lee.farrell <at> cda.canon.com
===========================

-----Original Message-----
From: Harry Lewis [mailto:harryl <at> us.ibm.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2003 9:51 AM
To: pwg-announce <at> pwg.org
Subject: PWG-ANNOUNCE> June/July Meeting


It was pointed out in December that our current July (14-18 Vancouver, BC) schedule conflicts with an IETF meeting in Vienna. We don't have a great deal of IETF overlap, but we're attempting to avoid the conflict if possible. We tool a poll in December which slightly favored July 21 vs. June 16. During that poll, however, I received feedback that we should look at the week of June 23. I had originally thought that the end of this week was too close to the 4th of July.

I'll ask one more time - please vote - (no vote = don't care)

June 23-27
vs
July 21-25

I'll tally votes on Jan 16 and this topic will be put to rest at the plenary on Jan 21.  
----------------------------------------------
Harry Lewis
IBM Printing Systems
----------------------------------------------
Harry Lewis | 14 Jan 21:51 2003
Picon

Fw: PWG-ANNOUNCE> June/July Meeting


Reminder that I will tally votes for June 23 vs July 21 on Thursday. So far, I've heard from 5 people... which makes a lot of "don't cares".
----------------------------------------------
Harry Lewis
IBM Printing Systems
----------------------------------------------
----- Forwarded by Harry Lewis/Boulder/IBM on 01/14/2003 01:49 PM -----
Harry Lewis/Boulder/IBM <at> IBMUS
Sent by: owner-pwg-announce <at> pwg.org

01/09/2003 10:50 AM

       
        To:        pwg-announce <at> pwg.org
        cc:        
        Subject:        PWG-ANNOUNCE> June/July Meeting




It was pointed out in December that our current July (14-18 Vancouver, BC) schedule conflicts with an IETF meeting in Vienna. We don't have a great deal of IETF overlap, but we're attempting to avoid the conflict if possible. We tool a poll in December which slightly favored July 21 vs. June 16. During that poll, however, I received feedback that we should look at the week of June 23. I had originally thought that the end of this week was too close to the 4th of July.

I'll ask one more time - please vote - (no vote = don't care)

June 23-27
vs
July 21-25

I'll tally votes on Jan 16 and this topic will be put to rest at the plenary on Jan 21.  
----------------------------------------------
Harry Lewis
IBM Printing Systems
----------------------------------------------

Gmane