Re: [regext] draft-ietf-eppext-keyrelay unreasonably stuck on IPR?

Job Snijders <job@instituut.net> Wed, 09 November 2016 13:41 UTC

Return-Path: <job@instituut.net>
X-Original-To: regext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: regext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90FFD12998C for <regext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Nov 2016 05:41:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=instituut-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 bee3fMiHm4_V for <regext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Nov 2016 05:41:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wm0-x233.google.com (mail-wm0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::233]) (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 2543F1294DD for <regext@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Nov 2016 05:41:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wm0-x233.google.com with SMTP id p190so308840771wmp.1 for <regext@ietf.org>; Wed, 09 Nov 2016 05:41:17 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=instituut-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=Nx3LTF5Am4JGbYJeOHPPg5SCZqsWSeo8Cn/x+g2Ltt4=; b=dVaXITl8RRowJpPz/7IOeG+Ly9TopF6jk+bWsuwImn9M8H996krZZY+mDa3wc/iZwZ g1byYjJFGE6MVuoVYwXCljnzSqjhHczNNjoxTA4jYeEAbSvn5M2XSo5Mt7Cllb5tWMbh VP4YSsu2N2/x6U3Q4812wOz5bOXyEGu3lcbsZMl7o5+lHqUc0KdHF6RZa7xijOkj5E1x UzRPuTu2qvpYk0csFVPxa6576V4B9K2IZbgif+o4o8fkYLa8oIJ9Qvwk25fCiLIY+sXn MX8oGkOUPYI66lJYEHPSE9ikT4N3dNuOo5LPTgt1vcESkjHURHu6dH/dJIiCNzHgWKvq ldXQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=Nx3LTF5Am4JGbYJeOHPPg5SCZqsWSeo8Cn/x+g2Ltt4=; b=jyxO+GSEZMYAqyVO2TB9bsHneef+vwTnfumLMBrpkU0CrnhKXBJ86QmSSQLegNSaj/ nlXdZ1yGEVFixf1vkwToP6LPUsLAg7Ly3ROkjG3LaRBZ6MZ05uyygQXefddFBfhiPYvD c6ctuMjwZNYQlSqZfjBjrbpYkB8s6I6klRJzEyRBzgJzUkMKLD4MafhCBRmP4JaK46bu vSKLscZDRB9VFayd2hJgiZFvKBerOecT95RKMPubeb795VC3W00dhE9YM0ZiiN7fgPzl 2thYtENJ44T9TdCnBuDpJIww3tNZ2tiTXX+WhXkv7/hBfQK0SfWoFEMcUq8UEN2Pigx5 ahng==
X-Gm-Message-State: ABUngvfPM5Sg98ngNQCmb21YIfhO1UgYSMugLN/Ux/W0dcs4OiH4gCMVXUbVmRm2kn07mQ==
X-Received: by 10.28.188.87 with SMTP id m84mr352747wmf.14.1478698876526; Wed, 09 Nov 2016 05:41:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost ([2001:67c:208c:10:b923:4557:760e:42d]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id wh3sm43035394wjb.49.2016.11.09.05.41.14 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 09 Nov 2016 05:41:15 -0800 (PST)
Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2016 14:41:14 +0100
From: Job Snijders <job@instituut.net>
To: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>
Message-ID: <20161109134114.GK2473@Hanna.local>
References: <20161108144742.GH2473@Hanna.local> <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F4A4BC33E@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <20161109093524.GC89276@Vurt.local> <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F4A4BCC19@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F4A4BCC19@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>
X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett
User-Agent: Mutt/1.7.1 (2016-10-04)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/regext/DD16PBB6XT8h0038GWhh17LitsU>
Cc: "draft-ietf-eppext-keyrelay.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-eppext-keyrelay.all@ietf.org>, "Livesay, Paul" <plivesay@verisign.com>, "regext@ietf.org" <regext@ietf.org>, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Subject: Re: [regext] draft-ietf-eppext-keyrelay unreasonably stuck on IPR?
X-BeenThere: regext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Registration Protocols Extensions <regext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/regext>, <mailto:regext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/regext/>
List-Post: <mailto:regext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:regext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext>, <mailto:regext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2016 13:41:20 -0000

On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 12:19:44PM +0000, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:
> > Because Verisign still has the option to provide a more detailed
> > Licensing Declaration ahead of the issuance, covering whatever claims
> > (if any) will be allowed.
> > 
> > Why has Versign choosen not to provide a Licensing Declaration such as
> > option A ('no license'), B ('Free RAND'), C ('RAND') or E ('NOPE')?
> > 
> > In failing to provide clarity to the internet engineering community,
> > Verisign is arguably obstructing much needed internet security
> > mechanisms.
> 
> In my last note I explained why the decision was made to not update
> the disclosure: we do not know if the patent will be granted, and we
> do not know which, if any, of the claims will be allowed. We cannot
> provide a definitive licensing declaration for something that remains
> unknown.

No. Verisign has submitted a patent and is fully aware what the contents
of that submission are. Verisign is also in a position to decide what
the licensing will look like depending on the possible outcomes for the
USPTO process.

Verisign chooses not to do so, and thus frustrates the process.

Kind regards,

Job