IPR disclosure for draft-ietf-httpbis-encryption-encoding
Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Fri, 24 June 2016 07:18 UTC
Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request+bounce-httpbisa-archive-bis2juki=lists.ie@listhub.w3.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 942CB12D99B for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Jun 2016 00:18:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.347
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.347 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, 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 LO3LqbHAKgn3 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Jun 2016 00:18:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B703412D997 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Jun 2016 00:18:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1bGLKL-00054T-Be for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 24 Jun 2016 07:14:57 +0000
Resent-Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 07:14:57 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1bGLKL-00054T-Be@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1bGLKF-00053d-BN for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 24 Jun 2016 07:14:51 +0000
Received: from mxout-07.mxes.net ([216.86.168.182]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA256:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1bGLKB-00074K-CE for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Fri, 24 Jun 2016 07:14:49 +0000
Received: from [192.168.1.101] (unknown [120.149.194.112]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6720622E253 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Fri, 24 Jun 2016 03:14:22 -0400 (EDT)
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <36BF957B-31D7-4F47-8C80-4F0506D09E64@mnot.net>
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 17:14:20 +1000
To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=216.86.168.182; envelope-from=mnot@mnot.net; helo=mxout-07.mxes.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.2
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=1.357, BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_DB=-1, W3C_IRA=-1, W3C_IRR=-3, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1bGLKB-00074K-CE 6609ece1415f06388ecfc85c2aaa6b1b
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: IPR disclosure for draft-ietf-httpbis-encryption-encoding
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/36BF957B-31D7-4F47-8C80-4F0506D09E64@mnot.net>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/31782
X-Loop: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Resent-Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ietf-http-wg.w3.org>
List-Help: <http://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>
As we close WGLC for draft-ietf-httpbis-encryption-encoding, I'm obligated to point out that an IPR disclosure for this document has been made: https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2777/ Please review it, and if as a result you believe that we need to change the draft, please say so on list (or in an issue). Note that at this point, the WG lists (mailing and issue) are NOT an appropriate venue for discussing the merits of any IPR disclosures. However, if you as an implementer feel that it is necessary to license this IPR, that would be useful information (as per RFC3979, Section 10). If you don't believe any change in the draft is necessary as a result of this disclosure, no response to this message is necessary. Kind regards, -- Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/
- IPR disclosure for draft-ietf-httpbis-encryption-… Mark Nottingham