(Removing the IETF list) > -----Original Message----- > From: Job Snijders [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2016 9:48 AM > To: [email protected]; [email protected]; Livesay, Paul; Hollenbeck, Scott; > [email protected] > Subject: draft-ietf-eppext-keyrelay unreasonably stuck on IPR? > > Dear IETF, > > Since the EPPEXT Working Group has been concluded and evolved into > regext, I'm reaching out to the bigger group about a document that > somehow is stuck. > > The keyrelay specification describes how one can change the DNS > operator > of a domain while keeping the DNSSEC chain of trust intact. Obviously > this beats the current "not-the-best" practise of going insecure, > transferring and then securing the domain again. > > Background info on secure domain transfers: > > http://www.internetsociety.org/deploy360/blog/2013/09/how-to- > securely-transfer-a-dnssec-signed-domain-between-dns-operators-sidns- > epp-keyrelay/ > https://www.sidnlabs.nl/downloads/wp_2013_EPP-keyrelay_v1.en.pdf > > Draft-ietf-eppext-keyrelay can't progress due to a DISCUSS from Stephen > Farrell. Farrel raised because the IPR situation is not succinctly > clear: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-eppext- > keyrelay/ballot/ > > From the IPR details here listed at > https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2393/ I quote: > > """Licensing Declaration to be Provided Later (implies a > willingness > to commit to the provisions of a), b), or c) above to all > implementers; otherwise, the next option 'Unwilling to Commit to > the > Provisions of a), b), or c) Above'. - must be selected)""" > > The IPR statement was submitted on July 21, 2014. I am not sure what > the capitalisation of the words "Provided Later" signifies - but surely > the purpose of this process is not to stall and leave a document in > limbo forever. I appreciate that IPR related work can take time, but > this long? A convenient counter is provided here: > https://rikribbers.nl/keyrelay/ > > I've asked the keyrelay authors what attempts have been undertaken to > resolve the situation, and according to them attempts to communicate > with the (presumably a legal department) contact persons listed at > https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2393/ have gone unanswered, and the > IETF participant whose belief triggered the disclosure has not been > able > to progress the issue either. A promise such as "soon" is appreciated, > but not sufficient: > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/regext/SbwMA57ebzMjKwaphz6AZzliMM > 0
This is the latest information I (I am the IETF participant whose belief triggered the disclosure) have as of right now: the patent has not been issued, and so Verisign does not know which, if any, claims will be allowed. The disclosure will be updated when the application process has been completed by the patent office. Scott _______________________________________________ regext mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
