IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [CDNi] New version (and IPR statement) of draft-brandenburg-cdni-uri-signing-for-has

"Brandenburg, R. (Ray) van" <ray.vanbrandenburg@tno.nl> Sun, 12 June 2016 20:46 UTC

Return-Path: <ray.vanbrandenburg@tno.nl>
X-Original-To: cdni@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: cdni@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4417412D0CB for <cdni@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 12 Jun 2016 13:46:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.626
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.626 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YR9TTYGdHP8z for <cdni@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 12 Jun 2016 13:46:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fromintouta.tno.nl (fromintouta.tno.nl [134.221.1.26]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 35DB412B02C for <cdni@ietf.org>; Sun, 12 Jun 2016 13:46:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="5.26,463,1459807200"; d="scan'208,217"; a="64814189"
Received: from exc-cashub03.tsn.tno.nl (HELO mail.tno.nl) ([134.221.225.222]) by mailhost1a.tno.nl with ESMTP; 12 Jun 2016 22:46:29 +0200
Received: from EXC-MBX03.tsn.tno.nl ([fe80::e969:1300:fb9f:7e12]) by EXC-CASHUB03.tsn.tno.nl ([fe80::6d39:f277:173e:a926%13]) with mapi id 14.03.0294.000; Sun, 12 Jun 2016 22:46:29 +0200
From: "Brandenburg, R. (Ray) van" <ray.vanbrandenburg@tno.nl>
To: Kevin Ma J <kevin.j.ma@ericsson.com>
Thread-Topic: New version (and IPR statement) of draft-brandenburg-cdni-uri-signing-for-has
Thread-Index: AQHRwy2I54wAQQPyYkOQMx8zvzoaI5/kbdJggAHi0LM=
Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2016 20:46:28 +0000
Message-ID: <773C358A-078D-477A-A547-DB376B60635E@tno.nl>
References: <90041886-D253-413F-B006-50BDA558EB12@tno.nl>, <A419F67F880AB2468214E154CB8A556206E10D82@eusaamb103.ericsson.se>
In-Reply-To: <A419F67F880AB2468214E154CB8A556206E10D82@eusaamb103.ericsson.se>
Accept-Language: en-US, nl-NL
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-esetresult: clean, is OK
x-esetid: 37303A29F368486F627260
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_773C358A078D477AA547DB376B60635Etnonl_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cdni/RFLDBjnauQ1LZFoukNVqb8XkaZQ>
Cc: "cdni@ietf.org" <cdni@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [CDNi] New version (and IPR statement) of draft-brandenburg-cdni-uri-signing-for-has
X-BeenThere: cdni@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "This list is to discuss issues associated with the Interconnection of Content Delivery Networks \(CDNs\)" <cdni.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/cdni>, <mailto:cdni-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/cdni/>
List-Post: <mailto:cdni@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:cdni-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cdni>, <mailto:cdni-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2016 20:46:34 -0000

Hi Kevin,

Fwiw: I checked and the IPR statement should have been filed as an update instead of a new one. A request has been filed to the secretariat to fix this.

Ray

On 11 Jun 2016, at 20:57, Kevin Ma J <kevin.j.ma@ericsson.com<mailto:kevin.j.ma@ericsson.com>> wrote:

Hi All,

  (As a chair) Per the decision in BA (https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/95/minutes/minutes-95-cdni), we deferred discussion of whether to (re)adopt draft-brandenburg-cdni-uri-signing-for-has as a WG item.  For historical context, in Prague, we decided to separate the IPR encumbered portion of URI signing from the WG draft (https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/93/minutes/minutes-93-cdni).

  There is a new IPR disclosure (https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2806/) available that folks should take a look at.  Note: I'm not sure if it should have been an update to the previous disclosure (https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2652/) or whether that makes a difference?  Alexey?

  If folks have thoughts about whether or not we should (re)adopt the HAS URI signing work, in light of the new IPR disclosure, please send your comments to the list.

thanx!

--  Kevin J. Ma

From: CDNi [mailto:cdni-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Brandenburg, R. (Ray) van
Sent: Friday, June 10, 2016 11:34 AM
To: cdni@ietf.org<mailto:cdni@ietf.org>
Subject: [CDNi] New version (and IPR statement) of draft-brandenburg-cdni-uri-signing-for-has

Hi all,

As you might have seen, I’ve recently uploaded a new version of draft-brandenburg-cdni-uri-signing-for-has (-03).

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-brandenburg-cdni-uri-signing-for-has-03

What is important to note is that KPN has updated it’s IPR statement on this document to be in line with the IPR statements that have been filed on other CDNI documents (i.e. “Royalty-Free, Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory License to All Implementers”). Hopefully this clears up the lengthy IPR discussion we’ve been having around this document so that we can focus on the technical aspects again.

Looking forward to your feedback,
Ray

This message may contain information that is not intended for you. If you are not the addressee or if this message was sent to you by mistake, you are requested to inform the sender and delete the message. TNO accepts no liability for the content of this e-mail, for the manner in which you use it and for damage of any kind resulting from the risks inherent to the electronic transmission of messages.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email