We have reviewed and Verisign believes that no change to its IPR disclosure is required at this time.
Russ ________________________________________ From: Jiankang YAO [[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, December 23, 2012 10:55 PM To: [email protected]; Patent Licensing; SM Cc: [email protected]; White, Russell; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: [DNSOP] IPR Disclosure: VeriSign, Inc.'s Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc4641bis-13 and draft-koch-dnsop-dnssec-operator-change-04 ----- Original Message ----- From: "SM" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]>; <[email protected]> Cc: <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>; <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, December 07, 2012 3:13 AM Subject: Re: [DNSOP] IPR Disclosure: VeriSign, Inc.'s Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc4641bis-13 and draft-koch-dnsop-dnssec-operator-change-04 > The IPR disclosure at https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1924/ does not > mention RFC 4641. As draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc4641bis-13 is based on RFC > 4641, does the submitter believe that an IPR disclosure is required > for RFC 4641? > I am interested in this question too since rfc4641bis and rfc4641 share a lot of points. Jiankang Yao > Regards, > -sm > > _______________________________________________ > DNSOP mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
