Re: [Enum] Social ENUM / Patents and Intellectual Property

[Lawrence Conroy <[e-mail]>]

Hi Duane, Eric, folks,

 Hi Duane ... You too :).

----
All I'll say on this (apart from the exclusively personal "good luck") is -- There are many ways of doing this, and in many places in DNS.

Do you think Telnic might have thought of the kinds of info that people could want to publish **before** we went for the .tel CCTLD in 2004?
(and yes, there was an attempt in the earlier 2000 round, but that time the ITU stamped on all things vaguely related to telephony).
LJ was the coming star at that point -- how times change.

For some more RW examples ..
See <http://social.henri.tel> or dig social.henri.tel for NAPTR
(henri.tel is not a web site, it points at a proxy that digs and presents the content in a web response)

or dig instant-messaging.henri.tel for NAPTR, or ...

[Re. avoiding the standard process -- I feel your pain.
When we finally got around to registering IM, the blatantly obvious way to do this was overtaken by the cultish pres and im Enumservices, which sure convinced me that just doing it was easier than arguing. The real world intruded we have ugly NAPTRs in .tel; sigh]

BTW, speaking of different ways of doing this, see the ENUM FOAF stuff from 2006 for example.

SN records can be taken much further, but the privacy concerns are ridiculous, so it only works (with sane privacy) with proper encryption.
That's hard in DNS (unless one uses something like <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-timms-encrypt-naptr-01>, and publishes data for one's friends only, of course).
----

all the best,
  Lawrence

On 3 Apr 2012, at 06:39, Duane wrote:
> On 04/03/12 14:56, Eric Stone wrote:
>> Dear ENUM Group,
>> 
>> In reference to draft-goix-appsawg-enum-sn-service-00.txt I have to raise my hand and ask to slow down.  My apologies first in case this rubs people the wrong way, I do not want to be a party pooper, but I do feel that this is my party.  Our intellectual property re: Social ENUM date to 2008 and we specifically did not publish to the IETF and have done the traditional patent protection around this tech.  Interestingly the latest draft is spot on --  which really begs the question as from what I understood, you can't protect an open standard and therefore we did not do so.  I don't mind sharing but the specific mechanisms described in the draft are in direct conflict with our IP.   We even built the server and have it in operation and are moving into trial with a major operator.    Specifically the use of any type of "sn" style records in ENUM / E164 and other lookup type db's would be in direct violation of our IP.
> 
> e164.org was publishing IM and other social network information via DNS at least as far back as December 2006, I'd have to check the mailing list archive for specific dates.
> 
> And before it gets pointed out, no we didn't use SN, but that seems an incremental and/or novel change over what we are doing.