> 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. >
The same has happened with the IPSec patent from versign. Obvious prior art and the same unclear license policy. I got scolded at by versign representatives at one of the last ietfs for pointing this out. I wonder how we as a community need to act on this continued counter-productive behaviour. Paul _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
