Re: [DNSOP] draft-dickinson-dnsop-nameserver-control-00

["TS Glassey" <[e-mail]>]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Paul Wouters" <[e-mail]>
To: "bert hubert" <[e-mail]>
Cc: <[e-mail]>; "TS Glassey" <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, October 27, 2008 12:48 PM
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] draft-dickinson-dnsop-nameserver-control-00


> On Mon, 27 Oct 2008, bert hubert wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 11:01:13AM -0800, TS Glassey wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> Please start litigating. I've looked at this patent and the other one you
>> mentioned in the context of DNSSEC, and based on earlier discussions with 
>> a
>> patFrom [e-mail]  Mon Oct 27 16:21:13 2008
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
X-Original-To: [e-mail]
Delivered-To: [e-mail]
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 331C13A6BBC;
	Mon, 27 Oct 2008 16:21:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: [e-mail]
Delivered-To: [e-mail]
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCF1A3A6813
	for <[e-mail]>; Mon, 27 Oct 2008 16:21:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.483
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.483 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.115, 
	BAYES_00=-2.599, STOX_REPLY_TYPE=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32])
	by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id QiTQdjNSZdUf for <[e-mail]>;
	Mon, 27 Oct 2008 16:21:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from elasmtp-masked.atl.sa.earthlink.net
	(elasmtp-masked.atl.sa.earthlink.net [209.86.89.68])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A4BF3A6B3D
	for <[e-mail]>; Mon, 27 Oct 2008 16:21:04 -0700 (PDT)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=earthlink.net;
	b=EaGEU4c+/7rOsvJAJ7mYZm0uoZ5Z0mjklY3XmDucWDqzeJEQU3ZaLnZepziMGuU6;
	h=Received:Message-ID:From:To:Cc:References:Subject:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Priority:X-MSMail-Priority:X-Mailer:X-MimeOLE:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP;
Received: from [67.180.133.66] (helo=tsg1)
	by elasmtp-masked.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.67)
	(envelope-from <[e-mail]>)
	id 1KubON-0000uo-SA; Mon, 27 Oct 2008 19:21:00 -0400
Message-ID: <003901c9388a$c8de6470$6401a8c0@tsg1>
From: "TS Glassey" <[e-mail]>
To: "Paul Wouters" <[e-mail]>,
	"bert hubert" <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]><[e-mail]><002f01c950c6$477eaa80$2000a8c0@tsg1><[e-mail]>
	<[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2008 16:21:38 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3350
X-ELNK-Trace: 01b7a7e171bdf5911aa676d7e74259b7b3291a7d08dfec79bd18ef1b5b34ee02e4ee45c259768501350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c
X-Originating-IP: 67.180.133.66
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] draft-dickinson-dnsop-nameserver-control-00
X-BeenThere: [e-mail]
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>,
	<mailto:[e-mail]?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/dnsop>
List-Post: <mailto:[e-mail]>
List-Help: <mailto:[e-mail]?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>,
	<mailto:[e-mail]?subject=subscribe>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Paul Wouters" <[e-mail]>
To: "bert hubert" <[e-mail]>
Cc: <[e-mail]>; "TS Glassey" <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, October 27, 2008 12:48 PM
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] draft-dickinson-dnsop-nameserver-control-00


> On Mon, 27 Oct 2008, bert hubert wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 11:01:13AM -0800, TS Glassey wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> Please start litigating. I've looked at this patent and the other one you
>> mentioned in the context of DNSSEC, and based on earlier discussions with 
>> a
>> pent attorney, your claims don't look like they would stand up at least 
>> in
>> Dutch courts.
>
> I agree. The patent is irrelevant.

Then you personally are assuming all professional liability for this working 
group if you are wrong since you just formally advised everyone on this list 
to ignore the patent's coverage. Nice move... since you literally are not 
qualified to tell people that, whereas  I am allowed to assert that these 
technologies are protected by our patent as the patent's protector. The ONLY 
person who can formally say otherwise by the way is a lawyer.


> One example of prior art I can come up
> with already is Netscape restricting its SSL download in the 90's to US
> citizens only, based on geogrpahical locations of IP addresses, back in
> the early day before the Wassenaar Agreement relaxed US export controls,
> a decade before the filing of this patent in 2002.

1)    The SSL restrictions comes from a single product which accomplished 
this process.  The SSL process is a simple tool which provides modular usage 
of itself as a tool, based on the key/pki model used.

By the way Paul -  I am negotiating with Network Solutions on their 
ownership of the US Navy's SSL patent as well.

2) The controlling access, patent is a derivative of an already filed patent 
and was originally filed in 1999 and issued in 2002 not filed in 2002 as you 
mistakenly represented here. The thing that ties it all together is the 
location value being asserted through the inclusion of the location-tool 
(the GPS reciever).


>
> And last I looked, my DNSSEC servers and clients don't have a GPS, the 
> only
> part of the "invention" that might possible hold (IANAL).

They dont need to - they just need to have location-broadcasts which use 
signed location data.

>
> But the Patent Holder seems to think using a physical key to lock out 
> everyone
> "geospatially located outside my house" seems to violate their patent.
>
> I have no idea how DNSSEC possibly relates to this.

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 preventing its 
implementation.

And yes Paul I can and will document how the patent pertains to DNSSEC and 
any number of other processes which now use secured-location information as 
part of their keying process for administering their practical security 
policy.

>
> Paul
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Internal Virus Database is out of date.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.8.4/1749 - Release Date: 10/27/2008 
7:57 AM

_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop


atent attorney, your claims don't look like they would stand up at least 
>> in
>> Dutch courts.
>
> I agree. The patent is irrelevant.

Then you personally are assuming all professional liability for this working 
group if you are wrong since you just formally advised everyone on this list 
to ignore the patent's coverage. Nice move... since you literally are not 
qualified to tell people that, whereas  I am allowed to assert that these 
technologies are protected by our patent as the patent's protector. The ONLY 
person who can formally say otherwise by the way is a lawyer.


> One example of prior art I can come up
> with already is Netscape restricting its SSL download in the 90's to US
> citizens only, based on geogrpahical locations of IP addresses, back in
> the early day before the Wassenaar Agreement relaxed US export controls,
> a decade before the filing of this patent in 2002.

1)    The SSL restrictions comes from a single product which accomplished 
this process.  The SSL process is a simple tool which provides modular usage 
of itself as a tool, based on the key/pki model used.

By the way Paul -  I am negotiating with Network Solutions on their 
ownership of the US Navy's SSL patent as well.

2) The controlling access, patent is a derivative of an already filed patent 
and was originally filed in 1999 and issued in 2002 not filed in 2002 as you 
mistakenly represented here. The thing that ties it all together is the 
location value being asserted through the inclusion of the location-tool 
(the GPS reciever).


>
> And last I looked, my DNSSEC servers and clients don't have a GPS, the 
> only
> part of the "invention" that might possible hold (IANAL).

They dont need to - they just need to have location-broadcasts which use 
signed location data.

>
> But the Patent Holder seems to think using a physical key to lock out 
> everyone
> "geospatially located outside my house" seems to violate their patent.
>
> I have no idea how DNSSEC possibly relates to this.

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 preventing its 
implementation.

And yes Paul I can and will document how the patent pertains to DNSSEC and 
any number of other processes which now use secured-location information as 
part of their keying process for administering their practical security 
policy.

>
> Paul
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Internal Virus Database is out of date.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.8.4/1749 - Release Date: 10/27/2008 
7:57 AM

_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop