I am personally not aware of any relevant IPR. "Pampers use multiple layers of protection to prevent leakage. Rommel used defense in depth to defend European fortresses." (A.White) [email protected]
>-----Original Message----- >From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf >Of Will Liu (Shucheng) >Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 6:02 PM >To: [email protected] >Cc: Fernando Gont; [email protected] >Subject: Re: [OPSEC] Fwd: Reminder about IPR relating to draft-ietf- >opsec-ipv6-implications-on-ipv4-nets > >Hi, Warren, > >Sorry for being late. >I'm personally not aware of any relevant IPR. Thanks. > >Regards, >Will > >> -------- Original Message -------- >> From: Warren Kumari <[email protected]> >> Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 14:39:23 -0500 >> Cc: Warren Kumari <[email protected]> >> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable >> Message-Id: <[email protected]> >> References: <[email protected]> >> To: [email protected] <[email protected]>, >> [email protected] >> <[email protected]>, >opsec >> chairs <[email protected]> >> Subject: Fwd: Reminder about IPR relating to >> draft-ietf-opsec-ipv6-implications-on-ipv4-nets >> >> For some reason this seems to have been eaten by the mailer... >> >> Resending... >> >> W >> >> Begin forwarded message: >> >> > From: Warren Kumari <[email protected]> >> > Subject: Reminder about IPR relating to >> draft-ietf-opsec-ipv6-implications-on-ipv4-nets >> > Date: January 24, 2013 12:02:07 PM EST >> > To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, >> [email protected], opsec >chairs >> <[email protected]> >> > Cc: Warren Kumari <[email protected]> >> > >> > Dear OpSec WG, >> > >> > Be not alarmed. >> > This email was created to satisfy RFC 6702 "Promoting Compliance >with >> Intellectual Property Rights (IPR)" >(http://tools.ietf.org/rfc/rfc6702.txt). >> > >> > We are doing the IPR reminder in parallel with the WGLC so that we >have >> all our ducks in a row... >> > >> > Are you personally aware of any IPR that applies to >> draft-ietf-opsec-ipv6-implications-on-ipv4-nets? If so, has this IPR >been >> disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules? >> > (See RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669, and 5378 for more details.) >> > >> > If you are a document author or listed contributor on this document, >> please reply to this email regardless of whether or not you are >personally >> aware of any relevant IPR. We might not be able to advance this >document >> to the next stage until we have received a reply from each author and >listed >> contributor. >> > >> > If you are on the OpSec WG email list but are not an author or >listed >> contributor for this document, you are reminded of your opportunity >for a >> voluntary IPR disclosure under BCP 79. Please do not reply unless you >want >> to make such a voluntary disclosure. >> > >> > Online tools for filing IPR disclosures can be found at >> <http://www.ietf.org/ipr/file-disclosure>. >> > >> > Thanks, >> > Warren Kumari >> > (as OpSec WG co-chair) >> > >> > -- >> > "I think perhaps the most important problem is that we are trying to >> understand the fundamental workings of the universe via a language >devised >> for telling one another when the best fruit is." --Terry Prachett >> > >> > >> >> -- >> "I think perhaps the most important problem is that we are trying to >> understand the fundamental workings of the universe via a language >> devised for telling one another when the best fruit is." --Terry >Prachett >> >> >> >> > >_______________________________________________ >OPSEC mailing list >[email protected] >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec _______________________________________________ OPSEC mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec
