> -----Original Message----- > From: regext [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Rik Ribbers > Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2016 4:48 AM > To: Miek Gieben > Cc: Registration Protocols Extensions > Subject: Re: [regext] draft-ietf-eppext-keyrelay > > Miek, > > > On 30 Aug 2016, at 10:15, Miek Gieben <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Also the date on the IPR, lists 2009. Looking at the patent itself > the oldest > > date there is 2011? > > (I have an itchy feeling that by going through previous IETF > meetings, we should > > be able to find some prior art, taking 2011 as end date) > > Although it is tempting to discuss the patent claim it is irrelevant > for the discusion here. The consequence of forwarding without IPR- > disclosure is that any implementer will have to interpret the IPR > disclosure and the patent claim themselves. And the consequence of the > patent or parts of it being granted? I honestly don’t know what Versign > will do. They had almost 260 days now to update the IPR statement to > clarify that and it has not happened. Scott has indicated multiple > times that they are working on it. So if Scott (or anybody else within > Verisign) would indicate to the WG when it will update the IPR > disclosure that might help to move forward.
I continue to be told "soon". Scott _______________________________________________ regext mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
