in the IETF community it has been clear for many years that DNS was intended to be 8-bit clean, so for us the interpretation of RFC 1035 is clear. the interpretation may not be so "clear" (or it may be "clear" in a different way) to a court. just like what is "obvious" to a person experienced in Internet applications protocols (and which therfore should not be patentable) is not "obvious" to a patent examiner. for this reason, and unfortunately, technically clueful people are probably not very good at trying to second-guess how technically clueless people will interpret technical prose. we might be able to come up with a compelling (to us) argument that the patent doesn't apply because of language in 1035, but the best we can hope for is that this would provide ammunition to a competent patent attorney who isn't working for the Dark Side. Keith
- Re: [idn] Alternative Solutions Adam M. Costello
- Re: [idn] Alternative Solutions Kenneth Whistler
- Re: [idn] Alternative Solutions Keith Moore
- Re: [idn] Alternative Solutions John C Klensin
- Re: [idn] Alternative Solutions Sean X. Zhang
- Re: [idn] Alternative Solutions Keith Moore
- Re: [idn] Alternative Solutions Dave Crocker
- Re: [idn] Alternative Solutions Adam M. Costello
- Re: [idn] Alternative Solutions Tan Tin Wee
- Re: [idn] Alternative Solutions Sean X. Zhang
- Re: [idn] Alternative Solutions Keith Moore
- Re: [idn] Alternative Solutions Sean X. Zhang
- Re: [idn] Alternative Solutions Edmon
- Re: [idn] Alternative Solutions Keith Moore
- Re: [idn] Alternative Solutions Edmon
- Re: [idn] Alternative Solutions Keith Moore
- Re: [idn] Alternative Solutions Adam M. Costello
- RE: [idn] Alternative Solutions Jonathan Rosenne
- Re: [idn] Alternative Solutions Mark Davis
