On 03/29/2007 21:23 PM, Yao Jiankang wrote:
Maybe, when we register the IETF meeting, we not only register the
English name but also the Native character name. further, IETF may
print both the English name and the Native character name on the
Name Tag. :)
+1
Native language biggest on the
Simon,
I filed for patent (Jan and Sep 2005) and later promoted TLS authz (Feb
2006) in good faith. It is possible that the patent claims can be read more
broadly than I expected, but that's a fairly detailed and unresolved legal
question. I am working diligently to -- let me speak carefully --
At 11:50 AM -0500 3/29/07, Mark Brown wrote:
I have experienced some surprises when mixing law and Internet standards.
To try to avoid surprises, I have hired IPR attorneys at two different firms
to review my draft which proposes a royalty-free license grant. I expect
any resulting license will
While we're tagging attendees, let's get robots to follow them around and
give everyone connectivity wherever they are--and track them:
http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasictaxonomyName=wireless_trends_and_technologiesarticleId=9014819taxonomyId=78
Maybe the
Hi. I had a few discussions in Prague and think that we're all
basically on the same page about what the document should say. I'm
going to describe that consensus here. I'd like to ask Russ to
confirm that the document reflects the consensus
and if so to ask me to remove my discuss and
--On Friday, 30 March, 2007 10:12 -0700 Paul Hoffman
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 11:50 AM -0500 3/29/07, Mark Brown wrote:
I have experienced some surprises when mixing law and
Internet standards. To try to avoid surprises, I have hired
IPR attorneys at two different firms to review my
Just following onto John's note.
For whatever it is worth, I think we need to step carefully
around the distinction Paul makes above: there are almost
certainly circumstances in which we should accept a broader
grant of rights conditional on standardization and a narrower
one if the technology
On Friday, March 30, 2007 10:12:14 AM -0700 Paul Hoffman
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 11:50 AM -0500 3/29/07, Mark Brown wrote:
I have experienced some surprises when mixing law and Internet standards.
To try to avoid surprises, I have hired IPR attorneys at two different
firms to review my
Only if there are multiple, independent, interoperable implementations.
Regards
Marshall
On Mar 30, 2007, at 1:43 PM, Chris Elliott wrote:
While we're tagging attendees, let's get robots to follow them
around and give everyone connectivity wherever they are--and track
them:
On Friday, March 30, 2007 02:59:51 PM -0400 Marshall Eubanks
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Only if there are multiple, independent, interoperable implementations.
On the contrary, this is one case where we must be careful _not_ to allow
interoperability. If the robots could interoperate,
John == John C Klensin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
John I also do not believe that it is appropriate to view
John Informational publication as some sort of consolation prize.
John If the community, and the IESG, conclude that the document
John and its technology should be
The Profiling Use of PKI in IPSEC WG (pki4ipsec) in the Security Area has
concluded.
The IESG contact persons are Russ Housley, Tim Polk, and Sam Hartman.
The mailing list will be closed.
The PKI4IPsec WG was chartered to work on three documents.
1) A standards-track document that gives
12 matches
Mail list logo
