Re: [mif] IPR discussion on draft-savolainen-mif-dns-server-selection

Andrew Sullivan <> Wed, 21 March 2012 10:29 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48F8E21F861C for <>; Wed, 21 Mar 2012 03:29:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.488
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.488 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.111, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UheHyQli-IvO for <>; Wed, 21 Mar 2012 03:29:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C801A21F85FC for <>; Wed, 21 Mar 2012 03:29:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6995C1ECB41D for <>; Wed, 21 Mar 2012 10:29:37 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2012 06:29:25 -0400
From: Andrew Sullivan <>
Message-ID: <>
References: <COL118-W5835836B923CFB65996C35B1400@phx.gbl>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <COL118-W5835836B923CFB65996C35B1400@phx.gbl>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Subject: Re: [mif] IPR discussion on draft-savolainen-mif-dns-server-selection
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multiple Interface Discussion List <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2012 10:29:39 -0000

Dear colleagues,

On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 05:01:21PM +0800, Hui Deng wrote:
> We have once received IPR disclosure for draft-savolainen-mif-dns-server-selection at :
> Just want to know your comments on this before moveing forward,

Thanks to the chairs for bringing this to our attention.

The IPR disclosure is for the -00 draft submission.  It would be nice
to know whether Nokia (or for that matter, Microsoft, if they make IPR
claims over these tricks -- I note there isn't one filed in the
datatracker) think the draft as it currently stands is still covered.
I'll assume so.

To my chagrin, I'm not a lawyer, but the terms in that IPR filing seem
acceptable -- or anyway, no worse than the rest of the project.  (That
is, the very idea of this sort of scoping of DNS servers is hideous to
me, but I understand why to do it and can still think of no better way
than what the draft does.)  The IPR declaration is no worse than the
idea itself.



Andrew Sullivan