IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Jelte Jansen <jelte.jansen@sidn.nl> Wed, 09 November 2016 13:34 UTC

Return-Path: <Jelte.Jansen@sidn.nl>
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 E81F31294B7; Wed, 9 Nov 2016 05:34:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.798
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.798 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.497, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sidn.nl
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 XBAuFfkPij19; Wed, 9 Nov 2016 05:34:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from arn2-kamx.sidn.nl (kamx.sidn.nl [IPv6:2a00:d78:0:147:94:198:152:69]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BE80E126FDC; Wed, 9 Nov 2016 05:34:04 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; d=sidn.nl; s=sidn-nl; c=relaxed/relaxed; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-originating-ip:x-clientproxiedby; bh=xwWnbIBBiXRDRFVxYTa9cnBv/O5Y6H6eqAeL6JnSqT0=; b=kx/cfO+kqCccrUjnYQxNbgVSlf8R1lSciYgS0G4iKIAXhFCsjR+9r9UlMXR20OK/MhvDv2VsKJNzFdK9X3sfl+J+/XF/J7gICeSbmYZFi3A3atOVR4y/kzpWMPKIotEpN0IR5dOWkyYsZ3X5LKh/ePrJslWfi0XYqVeErWEVWFoDxp1cLrAJmpWfpyWHf4ZurCmYwBygGcC0AfOvrgf/ggqTOOVWC2fUiAdIiuNONDg6rvtz65xW0mLsQ1G2v1YnAEZrOnXdnIKNUNHKDRkITTieBsK7TK5kIyZP2H1ePykUTSpNCneJAnMXrU+/TVpgjuJvd8wDbvbp3ZdBWdDoGg==
Received: from ka-mbx03.SIDN.local ([192.168.2.179]) by arn2-kamx.sidn.nl with ESMTP id uA9DY0P0004071-uA9DY0P2004071 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=CAFAIL); Wed, 9 Nov 2016 14:34:00 +0100
Received: from zen.sidnlabs.nl (94.198.159.143) by ka-mbx03.SIDN.local (192.168.2.179) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1130.7; Wed, 9 Nov 2016 14:33:59 +0100
To: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>, Job Snijders <job@instituut.net>, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
References: <20161108144742.GH2473@Hanna.local> <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F4A4BC33E@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <20161109093524.GC89276@Vurt.local> <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F4A4BCC19@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>
From: Jelte Jansen <jelte.jansen@sidn.nl>
Message-ID: <cd141dea-8493-601f-806c-1672b8063458@sidn.nl>
Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2016 14:33:59 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/45.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F4A4BCC19@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Originating-IP: [94.198.159.143]
X-ClientProxiedBy: ka-hubcasn02.SIDN.local (192.168.2.172) To ka-mbx03.SIDN.local (192.168.2.179)
X-FEAS-SPF: 2 / 2, ip=94.198.159.143, helo=, mailFrom=jelte.jansen@sidn.nl, headerFrom=jelte.jansen@sidn.nl
Authentication-Results: arn2-kamx.sidn.nl; spf=pass (sidn.nl: domain of jelte.jansen@sidn.nl designates 94.198.159.143 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=jelte.jansen@sidn.nl
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/regext/W_pWuv39js2zozVgn2CONbrzL4A>
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>
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 13:34:08 -0000

> 
> "Note: If I am explicitly told that this was considered and participants were ok with the declaration even as-is, then I'll clear."
> 
> This never happened. Point 2:
> 

seems to me the participants weren't (and aren't), then.

> 
> 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.
> 

So Verisign cannot make a statement because the patent application
status is unclear, but the WG is expected to make a statement despite
the IPR claims/licensing terms being unclear?

A statement like 'if claims X and Y are allowed, we shall require
licensing' or 'we shall go full FRAND' doesn't seem that much to ask
for. Less so than the WG saying 'terms provided later are ok'.

Jelte

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email