> Niall O'Reilly <mailto:niall.orei...@ucd.ie> > Friday, February 27, 2015 8:04 AM > On Fri, 27 Feb 2015 12:39:22 +0000, > > This was filed in 2011. > > By that time, I expect that there must have been a considerable body > of prior art.
yes. as just one example, neustar/ultradns was offering this configuration for sale before this filing date. also, i have used this configuration in commerce, though i did not specifically offer it for sale, many times dating back to 1991 (when i had ., COM, and DEC.COM in stealth secondary zones, on an intermittently connected network.) however, more tellingly look at the word "and" in claim 1 and the paragraph which follows it: > and > a registry operation software configured to manage one or more top > level domains and store a subset of top level domain data of the > managed top level domains on the one or more TLD name servers, wherein > the subset includes records of one or more name servers whose network > addresses are within the boundary of the network and wherein the > subset is less than a full set of the top level domain data; what this means is, a simple implementation like kumari/hoffman would not infringe on claim 1 (and subsidiary claims 2-9). whereas claim 10 (and subclaims 11-20) is even more restrictive in what it covers, requiring also the local provision of an SLD. claims 10-20 are also invalidated by neustar's prior commercial offers. claim 21 is a rollup, and not innovative compared to claims 1-10 or claims 11-20. interestingly, it fails to address the hybrid-server model (rdns and adns in the same server) wherein no queries are made between those functions, since the adns data is directly reachable by the rdns within the shared server image. so, claim 21 can never infringe on kumari/hoffman, not even if the TLD and SLD requirements are also met. > Allison Mankin <mailto:allison.man...@gmail.com> > Thursday, February 26, 2015 8:24 AM > Expected that this would create an automatic mail to the WG but it > apparently is not going to, so here is a signal boost for a disclosure > filed yesterday: > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2539/ > thank you alison. but until verisign chooses a license regime for this patent, we won't know how to respond. it is this working group's cultural bias to avoid IPR, which means that if verisign doesn't self-declare the "royalty-free" option, IETF will have to engage lawyers and experts to determine whether this draft will have to be modified to avoid verisign's asserted rights. having verisign make the first move would save us all a lot of time and money. so this statement: > Due to the early state of the internet-draft, coverage of the claims > versus existing text is difficult to ascertain, a licensing > declaration to be provided later, if required ... is one i hope your team will vacate, and do the necessary research to determine what your license regime would be with respect to the kumari/hoffman draft as currently written. -- Paul Vixie
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
