On Mar 2, 2015, at 7:33 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 11:39:46PM -0500, > Tim Wicinski <[email protected]> wrote > a message of 22 lines which said: > >> Verisign updated the IPR information on qname minimisation >> >> http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2542/ > > Two points that may not be obvious immediately (yes, I am picky, but > it is legalese, so it is normal to be picky): > > * the licence is only for standard work, but qname minimisation > currently has "Intended status: experimental", not Standards Track.
Two things here: if the document is published as an Experimental or Informational RFC, Verisign could choose to update this IPR statement again. Or, this WG could decide to put it on standards track (or argue for months about why one track is more important than the other...) > * there is an advertisment clause. IANAL so I let people here think > about whether including the requested text is an endorsement or not of > the validity of the patent. I don't read it as such an endorsement. In fact, if an individual or organization thinks the patent is invalid, I would hope they would both use the IPR and fight the patent. --Paul Hoffman _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
