On 02/12/16 20:53, James Galvin wrote:
>
> I believe this responds to Stephen Farrell’s concern in his DISCUSS vote
> and ask that he confirm it is responsive and indicate if he has any
> additional questions or concerns.
That's fine with me, thanks. I'll clear the discuss ballot
shortly.
S.
This document has been pending in the publication queue for some time:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-eppext-keyrelay/
The IESG (Stephen Farrell) cast a DISCUSS vote during the IESG review
asking whether or not the working group had carefully considered the IPR
disclosure alleged
I believe the majority in the room in Seoul preferred to go forward.
(I certainly indicated my support of moving forward.)
Our area director seemed to have the same impression.
So if there isn't an outcry on the list, that's what we're doing, right?
/Ulrich
Jaap Akkerhuis schrieb am Mo., 28. Nov
Miek Gieben writes:
>
>
> [ Quoting in "Re: [regext] draft-ietf-eppext-keyr..." ]
> >Dear Working Group,
> >
> >TL;DR: the working group should move forward and disregard Verisign's IPR
> >claim.
>
> +1 from me on this.
>
Given all the argments I've seen on this list, going ahead
On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 11:33:04AM +0100, Job Snijders wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 07:47:49PM +0100, Antoin Verschuren wrote:
> > 2. We could jointly state that we took notice of the IPR claim, and
> > that no matter what the licensing terms or outcome of the application
> > is, we would like
On 10/11/2016 11:33, Job Snijders wrote:
> Given that Verisign demonstrated an unwillingness to amend their
> License Declaration, I'd like to support option 2.
+1
--
Marco
___
regext mailing list
regext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/
+1 Please move forward.
From: regext on behalf of Rik Ribbers
Date: Thursday, 10 November 2016 at 11:38
To: Job Snijders
Cc: "Livesay, Paul" , Antoin Verschuren
, "ali...@cooperw.in" , "regext@ietf.org"
, Stephen Farrell
Subject: Re: [regext] draft-ietf-eppe
Hi,
On Thu, Nov 10, 2016, at 07:44 AM, Rik Ribbers wrote:
> First of all thanks Antoin for your excellent reply. lots of +1
> in there.
>
>> On 9 Nov 2016, at 19:47, Antoin Verschuren wrote:
>>
>> Jim has asked for this before, with little to no response to call
>> consensus to have this draft p
+1
I encourage every member of this working group to state their opinion.
On 10 Nov 2016, at 11:33, Job Snijders
mailto:j...@instituut.net>> wrote:
TL;DR: the working group should move forward and disregard Verisign's IPR claim.
___
regext mailing li
[ Quoting in "Re: [regext] draft-ietf-eppext-keyr..." ]
Dear Working Group,
TL;DR: the working group should move forward and disregard Verisign's IPR claim.
+1 from me on this.
___
regext mailing list
regext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/li
Dear Working Group,
TL;DR: the working group should move forward and disregard Verisign's IPR claim.
On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 07:47:49PM +0100, Antoin Verschuren wrote:
> Just so that everyone has the same information regarding the IPR we
> are discussing, the patent application and it’s EPO proce
rw.in" ,
Scott Hollenbeck , "Livesay, Paul"
, "regext@ietf.org" , Stephen Farrell
Subject: Re: [regext] draft-ietf-eppext-keyrelay unreasonably stuck on IPR?
First of all thanks Antoin for your excellent reply. lots of +1 in there.
On 9 Nov 2016, at 19:47, Antoin Verschuren
First of all thanks Antoin for your excellent reply. lots of +1 in there.
On 9 Nov 2016, at 19:47, Antoin Verschuren
mailto:i...@antoin.nl>> wrote:
Jim has asked for this before, with little to no response to call consensus to
have this draft proceed, so I would like to ask you again to state
[Personal statement: Chair hat off]
Just so that everyone has the same information regarding the IPR we are
discussing, the patent application and it’s EPO process can be found here:
https://register.epo.org/ipfwretrieve?apn=US.201113078643.A&lng=en
The patent application has been officially rej
On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 12:19:44PM +, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:
> > Because Verisign still has the option to provide a more detailed
> > Licensing Declaration ahead of the issuance, covering whatever claims
> > (if any) will be allowed.
> >
> > Why has Versign choosen not to provide a Licensing
>
> "Note: If I am explicitly told that this was considered and participants were
> ok with the declaration even as-is, then I'll clear."
>
> This never happened. Point 2:
>
seems to me the participants weren't (and aren't), then.
>
> In my last note I explained why the decision was made to
> -Original Message-
> From: Antoin Verschuren [mailto:ant...@antoin.nl]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2016 8:05 AM
> To: Hollenbeck, Scott
> Cc: Job Snijders; Stephen Farrell; draft-ietf-eppext-
> keyrelay@ietf.org; Livesay, Paul; regext@ietf.org
> Subject: Re
> -Original Message-
> From: Job Snijders [mailto:j...@instituut.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2016 4:35 AM
> To: Hollenbeck, Scott; Stephen Farrell
> Cc: regext@ietf.org; Livesay, Paul; draft-ietf-eppext-
> keyrelay@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: draft-ietf-eppext-keyrelay unreasonably
On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 07:40:19PM +, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:
> (Removing the IETF list)
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Job Snijders [mailto:j...@instituut.net]
> > Subject: draft-ietf-eppext-keyrelay unreasonably stuck on IPR?
> >
> > """Licensing Declaration to be Provided
Hi Rik, Stephen,
[ietf@ removed from Cc]
At 11:53 08-11-2016, Rik Ribbers wrote:
Yes, this was addressed during the IESG review last december and
resulted in the latest version. The only thing blocking is the IPR-disclosure
Thank you for confirming that.
At 11:57 08-11-2016, Stephen Farrell
On 08/11/16 18:40, S Moonesamy wrote:
> Hi Job,
> At 06:47 08-11-2016, Job Snijders wrote:
>> Since the EPPEXT Working Group has been concluded and evolved into
>> regext, I'm reaching out to the bigger group about a document that
>> somehow is stuck.
>
> Did the authors or Working Group address
Yes, this was addressed during the IESG review last december and resulted in
the latest version. The only thing blocking is the IPR-disclosure
Gr,
Rik
On 8 Nov 2016, at 19:40, S Moonesamy
mailto:sm+i...@elandsys.com>> wrote:
Did the authors or Working Group address the second part of the DISCU
(Removing the IETF list)
> -Original Message-
> From: Job Snijders [mailto:j...@instituut.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2016 9:48 AM
> To: i...@ietf.org; regext@ietf.org; Livesay, Paul; Hollenbeck, Scott;
> draft-ietf-eppext-keyrelay@ietf.org
> Subject: draft-ietf-eppext-keyrelay
The following e-mail from Job Snijders was posted in regexpt (please
respond to the mail in that list):
Dear IETF,
Since the EPPEXT Working Group has been concluded and evolved into
regext, I'm reaching out to the bigger group about a document that
somehow is stuck.
The keyrelay specification
Hi Job,
At 06:47 08-11-2016, Job Snijders wrote:
Since the EPPEXT Working Group has been concluded and evolved into
regext, I'm reaching out to the bigger group about a document that
somehow is stuck.
Did the authors or Working Group address the second part of the DISCUSS?
Regards,
S. Moonesam
Dear IETF,
Since the EPPEXT Working Group has been concluded and evolved into
regext, I'm reaching out to the bigger group about a document that
somehow is stuck.
The keyrelay specification describes how one can change the DNS operator
of a domain while keeping the DNSSEC chain of trust intact. O
> -Original Message-
> From: regext [mailto:regext-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Rik Ribbers
> Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2016 4:48 AM
> To: Miek Gieben
> Cc: Registration Protocols Extensions
> Subject: Re: [regext] draft-ietf-eppext-keyrelay
>
> Miek,
>
&
[ Quoting in "Re: [regext] draft-ietf-eppext-keyr..." ]
Miek,
Although it is tempting to discuss the patent claim it is irrelevant for the
discusion here. The consequence of forwarding without IPR-disclosure is that
any implementer will have to interpret the IPR disclosure and the patent clai
Miek,
> On 30 Aug 2016, at 10:15, Miek Gieben wrote:
>
> Also the date on the IPR, lists 2009. Looking at the patent itself the oldest
> date there is 2011?
> (I have an itchy feeling that by going through previous IETF meetings, we
> should
> be able to find some prior art, taking 2011 as end
[ Quoting in "Re: [regext] draft-ietf-eppext-keyr..." ]
All,
This is just a friendly reminder to look into the question Jim Galvin has asked
the working group here:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/regext/L_TmhBqzzKGDREigZ4NeW7ANzyg
2. To the working group - is there anyone who objects
All,
This is just a friendly reminder to look into the question Jim Galvin has asked
the working group here:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/regext/L_TmhBqzzKGDREigZ4NeW7ANzyg
2. To the working group - is there anyone who objects to moving this document
forward without an IPR licensing
All,
>1. To the document authors - do you want to ask the working group if it would
>be willing to advance this document without a licensing statement from
>Verisign?
We (the authors) agree that the best option is to forward the document with the
updated IPR disclosure by Verisign. However, g
Roger,
On 08 Aug 2016, at 18:11, Roger D Carney
mailto:rcar...@godaddy.com>> wrote:
Why would we not include the statement?
We, the working group are depending on the legal department of Verisign to
provide these license details as Verisign is the discloser. I have tried to get
some feedback
Wisser
; Registration Protocols Extensions
Subject: Re: [regext] draft-ietf-eppext-keyrelay
Rik,
Speaking as working group co-chair (note that the other co-chair is conflicted
as he is a co-author), the working group has agreed to submit this document for
publication but the working group has
Rik,
Speaking as working group co-chair (note that the other co-chair is
conflicted as he is a co-author), the working group has agreed to submit
this document for publication but the working group has not considered
the issue of the IPR.
To say this differently, the working group has agreed
All,
Thx Ulrich for bringing this to the mailing list. I have sent a lengthy email
to WG-chairs and ADs on this issue but this mail sums it up quite easily. This
is my understanding:
I have re-read BCP-79 on the train home from IETF and I have to agree with
Scott that the IPR-disclosure on the
Hi all,
BCP 79 only requires the IPR declaration and some information on the
licensing policy.
No concrete license fees or policy is required. In it's IPR Verisign has
agreed to apply one of the following options
- a) No License Required for Implementers
- b) Royalty-Free, Reasonable and No
37 matches
Mail list logo
