Jim Reid wrote:
On Oct 27, 2008, at 23:21, TS Glassey wrote:
Which further document's why its improper for you Paul to be giving
people legal advice here. The US Government issued the patent so they
and six other jurisdictions thought it was OK and there wasn't prior
art prev
From: "Florian Weimer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "TS Glassey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "bert hubert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; ;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 2:18 PM
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] draft-dickinson-dnsop-nameserver-contro
--- Original Message -
From: "Florian Weimer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "TS Glassey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "bert hubert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; ;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 1:56 PM
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] draft-dickins
ot;Paul Wouters" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "bert hubert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: ; "TS Glassey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, October 27, 2008 4:10 PM
Subject: Rude legalese phone call, possibly related to "patent infringement"
On Mon,
- Original Message -
From: "Paul Wouters" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "bert hubert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: ; "TS Glassey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, October 27, 2008 12:48 PM
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] draft-dickinson-dnsop-nameserver-cont
You know Bert, the IETF requires I formally disclose this same info each
time a new infringing work is published, so take it up with them if you have
an issue.
Todd Glassey
- Original Message -
From: "bert hubert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "TS Glassey&qu
then you would already know that this patent controls the use of
a network-location as a crypto element of entitlement or authentication.
Todd Glassey
- Original Message -
From: "Paul Wouters" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "TS Glassey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
- Original Message -
From: "bert hubert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "TS Glassey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
Sent: Monday, October 27, 2008 11:11 AM
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] draft-dickinson-dnsop-nameserver-control-00
On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 11:01:13AM -0800,
Yeah and like the other DNSSEC I-D's I dfound numerous things in it that
would violate the controls put in place by US Patent 6,370,629 of which I am
one of the two owners and controlling parties to that IP.
This was posted originally with IPR201 but evidently no one bothers to check
and see w
Paul is not looking at the operations of DNSSEC as something that WILL by
its very process need to be Court Admissible Evidence and so that is not
being considered here.
Todd Glassey
- Original Message -
From: "Paul Hoffman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Scott
- Original Message -
From: "Scott Rose" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2008 4:07 AM
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Proposed changes to RFC 4641: rollovers
On Sep 29, 2008, at 7:46 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
any KSK can be used as a TA. there is no way to know -
- Original Message -
From: "Matthijs Mekking" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Paul Hoffman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2008 3:08 AM
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Proposed changes to RFC 4641: rollovers
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi Paul,
I encourage mak
- Original Message -
From: "Paul Hoffman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Sunday, September 28, 2008 9:15 PM
Subject: [DNSOP] Proposed changes to RFC 4641: better cryptography
Remove the second bullet in 3.1.1
In 3.2, add a reference to NIST SP 800-90 after the reference to RFC
4086.
13 matches
Mail list logo
