Re: [pkix] IPR Disclosure CERTICOM CORP's Statement about IPR related to RFC 3279 and RFC 3280

Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com> Mon, 21 October 2019 13:41 UTC

Return-Path: <hallam@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: pkix@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pkix@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2D1212004D for <pkix@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Oct 2019 06:41:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.646
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.646 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no 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 2t10FiVJgum5 for <pkix@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Oct 2019 06:41:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ot1-f52.google.com (mail-ot1-f52.google.com [209.85.210.52]) (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 31F93120033 for <pkix@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Oct 2019 06:41:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ot1-f52.google.com with SMTP id y39so10997024ota.7 for <pkix@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Oct 2019 06:41:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=6Q7/jEnZfXxze/Mnl1m4JF3R3TFu2nr95qkuAwpl5xg=; b=BsjxSZbB3Jt6jpgvypJPYX24GtD5zZHwRCYzBwUiLngPffR57PN6diEfaoRarLRqBh RZe0jgDtgtFJltOi+770c/VjGdOCGQh+9v51Y9yDrBfEMcSkC1eUfunrMzzQxTlFWdOK zYP6t6p1pfGlkrEk2xVKjde1olU3AKcdAu/pl/y5ipUd5LY9x90t+GmaMjyEGQHcqgVL inZYfSYUG+Wn+NLHl7JWp425BG1+H5crqgOWKZ/QC2gyA8PGKf4WieIeWr1kr73YDA+o EUOxlMGkrMIW5tDaHgjsJbM/Np8fluog7w2MpP/wrd9cW1EK9Xx3wPJ/i9CNqzBrMg/0 EUYg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVAFORNOF/Q8cY6XMszAiRTcp9Y6ht7c8nz+ibfn8patcxz60Fi 6LLlK7hdLVcl3boz7Dm3R+7uBvJe3Np3yPyha78=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxwGHNE3bI6OFBjYx/lMaWkX3udeV0PuxPcLf8uM2FQM5GQ6O3qiM7Ezv7aPwgzaAmZ+W5x/YBoV5tMi+J5evQ=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6830:22d9:: with SMTP id q25mr17755897otc.87.1571665299185; Mon, 21 Oct 2019 06:41:39 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <157012171997.16268.4411312142159251628@ietfa.amsl.com> <1570144219490.85926@cs.auckland.ac.nz> <218EB396-83E5-43E5-AEAF-994AAD21AEB3@studiocaccia.com> <CAMm+LwiU=e-3BaGuML1bDAvKtqQHKeUL7dpruETftzMJFTSNAQ@mail.gmail.com> <810C31990B57ED40B2062BA10D43FBF501E5CAF3@XMB116CNC.rim.net>
In-Reply-To: <810C31990B57ED40B2062BA10D43FBF501E5CAF3@XMB116CNC.rim.net>
From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2019 09:41:27 -0400
Message-ID: <CAMm+LwgOK7Zjo6dvqo6pFQajJNwuK+8w7VzNSb-oKL9GDpc1TA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dan Brown <danibrown@blackberry.com>
Cc: Andrea Caccia <andrea.caccia@studiocaccia.com>, "pkix@ietf.org" <pkix@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000dd242c05956bd76d"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pkix/DVg0lwt3iDkF1q9vcMGHly3j4hk>
Subject: Re: [pkix] IPR Disclosure CERTICOM CORP's Statement about IPR related to RFC 3279 and RFC 3280
X-BeenThere: pkix@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: PKIX Working Group <pkix.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/pkix>, <mailto:pkix-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/pkix/>
List-Post: <mailto:pkix@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pkix-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pkix>, <mailto:pkix-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2019 13:41:42 -0000

I had noticed that, meant to mention it.

My point in raising the prior art was to point out to Certicom that this is
a rubbish patent in any case. Sirbu and co at CMU have the prior art
(Netbill?) and it is not a scheme that has any relevance today.

On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 9:31 AM Dan Brown <danibrown@blackberry.com> wrote:

> FYI,
>
> This IPR disclosure was removed at the submitter's request.
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/3798/
>