Re: [Doh] Mozilla's plans re: DoH

Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> Fri, 29 March 2019 19:47 UTC

Return-Path: <adam@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: doh@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: doh@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C6D4120391 for <doh@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 Mar 2019 12:47:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.679
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.679 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=nostrum.com
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 wujoG3ercjKx for <doh@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 Mar 2019 12:47:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 888FA12037B for <doh@ietf.org>; Fri, 29 Mar 2019 12:47:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Orochi.local ([62.168.35.69]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id x2TJlPqk024936 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 29 Mar 2019 14:47:27 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from adam@nostrum.com)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=nostrum.com; s=default; t=1553888849; bh=0fA/mzQvP0LVYIDcOPvhds2+U7V1G9zc3Q1DX9SHXVo=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=H0bYVR3z5EjOwnzJI6kaGhVVXeWlspHWRaOKY3KsUNfvNz4gi8Uma5ilvhbkKJHy8 LcCFy28+fWTFr28jTO6RKT8tXRz5xut/lYrNAicLm24Bz+LcbgWosyn3wYRjOBSG5P jeG2oMeXN/sBXg9aiXQuvxB/HFjrLwbTFnFTNX6o=
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host [62.168.35.69] claimed to be Orochi.local
To: =?UTF-8?B?VmxhZGltw61yIMSMdW7DoXQ=?= <vladimir.cunat+ietf@nic.cz>, doh@ietf.org
References: <CABcZeBOk5bM+3G2Jd3Lu33Z08gc=AeoZ8UFHzN6AYk4f_hjZ8Q@mail.gmail.com> <CABcZeBPUh6x=D+GfKg11+4bRouZdm1LcZvLm1jd4UUEJA832BQ@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1903271629430.13313@grey.csi.cam.ac.uk> <CABcZeBOv0S8gHMYejhGkSncB4kX7KVFiYP3bHPLimdZ==epQQg@mail.gmail.com> <f983e770-f3ad-86ab-0b99-a0b15165c9bb@nic.cz> <92eb504b-42ff-fd35-b8d7-848d740736b9@nostrum.com> <f1636528-9e4d-7438-586e-c9a0d13c581c@nic.cz>
From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
Message-ID: <33d597a4-f587-5c02-5464-77065cd7060e@nostrum.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2019 20:47:24 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.6.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <f1636528-9e4d-7438-586e-c9a0d13c581c@nic.cz>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/doh/A1RuQ-9wP5W1jwUO7UBZYgmmhQE>
Subject: Re: [Doh] Mozilla's plans re: DoH
X-BeenThere: doh@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: DNS Over HTTPS <doh.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/doh>, <mailto:doh-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/doh/>
List-Post: <mailto:doh@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:doh-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/doh>, <mailto:doh-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2019 19:47:31 -0000

I'm not in a position to know what specific obligations may apply, as I 
don't know anything about peoples' current or past employers, previous 
potential involvement, or a host of other subtle issues that might be 
relevant. This is why I directed Petr to BCP 79 rather than trying to 
parse out the details of his situation.

The important issue is that any mention of specific patents must be done 
through the formal patent disclosure process rather than sending 
patent-related information to a mailing list or bringing it up as part 
of any other IETF contribution (such as during an IETF in-person session).

/a

On 3/29/19 19:15, Vladimír Čunát wrote:
> On 3/29/19 12:13 PM, Adam Roach wrote:
>> Please review the remainder of BCP 79 and take appropriate action. You
>> may wish to consult with legal counsel in determining how to proceed.
> The mentioned patent belongs to Red Hat (according to the link), but I
> can't see any (current) employee of Red Hat in this WG's discussion, on
> a quick look, so there seems to be no obligation.  What perhaps applies
> is 5.1.3 (a): third-party IPR, so the information is accessible in the
> usual way.
>
> Well, correct me if I'm wrong, as I'm rather avoiding patents whenever I
> can (and I'm no lawyer).
>
> --Vladimir
>
> _______________________________________________
> Doh mailing list
> Doh@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/doh