On 29 Oct 2014, at 18:50, Rubens Kuhl rube...@nic.br wrote:
What constitutes prior art, an idea or implementation of the idea ?
Would the 2007 implementation of a botnet with a built-in recursive resolver
that sends QNAME-minimised queries to the root to find the relevant TLD NS
records
Was anything published?
Sent from my difference engine
On Nov 5, 2014, at 11:04 AM, Ray Bellis ray.bel...@nominet.org.uk wrote:
On 29 Oct 2014, at 18:50, Rubens Kuhl rube...@nic.br wrote:
What constitutes prior art, an idea or implementation of the idea ?
Would the 2007
I moved the discussion to the dnsop mailing list because it is that WG, not
this one, which is discussing the draft-ietf-dnsop-qname-minimisation draft.
--Paul Hoffman
___
dns-privacy mailing list
dns-privacy@ietf.org
* Brian Haberman:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2469/
https://lists.dns-oarc.net/pipermail/dns-operations/2010-February/005003.html
I don't think it's the only public discussion of this idea from that
time frame.
___
dns-privacy mailing list
Generally speaking, the public expression of the idea is sufficient to
count for prior art, just like you can patent something you did not (or
could not) build.
(Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice, and the rule
of law may not exist in your country anyway.)
On 10/29/2014
, 2014 2:50 PM
To: Florian Weimer
Cc: dns-privacy@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dns-privacy] Verisign patent disclosure
Em 29/10/2014, à(s) 16:21:000, Florian Weimer f...@deneb.enyo.de escreveu:
* Brian Haberman:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2469/
https://lists.dns-oarc.net/pipermail/dns
dblument...@pir.org; Rubens Kuhl rube...@nic.br;
Florian Weimer f...@deneb.enyo.de
Cc: dns-privacy@ietf.org dns-privacy@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dns-privacy] Verisign patent disclosure
The quoted thread looks to me like nearly-very-good prior
art. If it had said the same for 2LDs or more generically
