Re: [OPSEC] Fwd: Reminder about IPR relating to draft-ietf-opsec-ipv6-implications-on-ipv4-nets

["Smith, Donald" <[e-mail]>]

I am personally not aware of any relevant IPR. 

"Pampers use multiple layers of protection to prevent leakage. Rommel used defense in depth to defend European fortresses." (A.White) [e-mail]


>-----Original Message-----
>From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf
>Of Will Liu (Shucheng)
>Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 6:02 PM
>To: [e-mail]
>Cc: Fernando Gont; [e-mail]
>Subject: Re: [OPSEC] Fwd: Reminder about IPR relating to draft-ietf-
>opsec-ipv6-implications-on-ipv4-nets
>
>Hi, Warren,
>
>Sorry for being late.
>I'm personally not aware of any relevant IPR. Thanks.
>
>Regards,
>Will
>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> From: Warren Kumari <[e-mail]>
>> Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 14:39:23 -0500
>> Cc: Warren Kumari <[e-mail]>
>> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>> Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
>> References: <[e-mail]>
>> To: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>,
>> [e-mail]
>> <[e-mail]>,
>opsec
>> chairs <[e-mail]>
>> Subject: Fwd: Reminder about IPR relating to
>> draft-ietf-opsec-ipv6-implications-on-ipv4-nets
>>
>> For some reason this seems to have been eaten by the mailer...
>>
>> Resending...
>>
>> W
>>
>> Begin forwarded message:
>>
>> > From: Warren Kumari <[e-mail]>
>> > Subject: Reminder about IPR relating to
>> draft-ietf-opsec-ipv6-implications-on-ipv4-nets
>> > Date: January 24, 2013 12:02:07 PM EST
>> > To: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>,
>> [e-mail], opsec
>chairs
>> <[e-mail]>
>> > Cc: Warren Kumari <[e-mail]>
>> >
>> > Dear OpSec WG,
>> >
>> > Be not alarmed.
>> > This email was created to satisfy RFC 6702 "Promoting Compliance
>with
>> Intellectual Property Rights (IPR)"
>(http://tools.ietf.org/rfc/rfc6702.txt).
>> >
>> > We are doing the IPR reminder in parallel with the WGLC so that we
>have
>> all our ducks in a row...
>> >
>> > Are you personally aware of any IPR that applies to
>> draft-ietf-opsec-ipv6-implications-on-ipv4-nets?  If so, has this IPR
>been
>> disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules?
>> > (See RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669, and 5378 for more details.)
>> >
>> > If you are a document author or listed contributor on this document,
>> please reply to this email regardless of whether or not you are
>personally
>> aware of any relevant IPR.  We might not be able to advance this
>document
>> to the next stage until we have received a reply from each author and
>listed
>> contributor.
>> >
>> > If you are on the OpSec WG email list but are not an author or
>listed
>> contributor for this document, you are reminded of your opportunity
>for a
>> voluntary IPR disclosure under BCP 79.  Please do not reply unless you
>want
>> to make such a voluntary disclosure.
>> >
>> > Online tools for filing IPR disclosures can be found at
>> <http://www.ietf.org/ipr/file-disclosure>.
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Warren Kumari
>> > (as OpSec WG co-chair)
>> >
>> > --
>> > "I think perhaps the most important problem is that we are trying to
>> understand the fundamental workings of the universe via a language
>devised
>> for telling one another when the best fruit is." --Terry Prachett
>> >
>> >
>>
>> --
>> "I think perhaps the most important problem is that we are trying to
>> understand the fundamental workings of the universe via a language
>> devised for telling one another when the best fruit is." --Terry
>Prachett
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>OPSEC mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec