Inline.
S.
On 1.14.2013 10:33 , Marc Petit-Huguenin petit...@acm.org wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 01/14/2013 01:10 AM, Eggert, Lars wrote:
Hi,
On Jan 14, 2013, at 10:08, Marc Petit-Huguenin petit...@acm.org wrote:
I think that you underestimate the IETF
Perhaps my final comment on this. Also cutting the thread down to
something readable. Inline.
S.
On 1.14.2013 10:46 , Stephen Farrell stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.ie wrote:
[...]
Yes, that's clearer. We're talking about two different continuums
(or continua:-), so either would work, and neither
Hi,
Please see inline.
Stephan
On 1.14.2013 11:31 , Marc Petit-Huguenin petit...@acm.org wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 01/14/2013 01:43 AM, Stephan Wenger wrote:
Inline. S.
On 1.14.2013 10:33 , Marc Petit-Huguenin petit...@acm.org wrote:
On 01/14/2013 01:10
Hi,
Please see inline.
Stephan
On 1.12.2013 10:32 , Stephen Farrell stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.ie wrote:
Hiya,
On 01/11/2013 09:02 PM, Stephan Wenger wrote:
[...]
Still, there is one reference that worries me, and that is the
reference
to GPLv3 code as an extreme in section 2.1. Yes, the GPL
Hi,
Sorry for replying to this advise to secretariat thread and not to the
ietf-announce thread--I'm not subscribed to ietf-announce.
I have three comments, and regret that I have not followed all of the
discussions regarding this draft before, so please advise if those
comments have already been
On 11.7.2012 07:10 , Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 07/11/2012 01:23, Randy Bush wrote:
[ my last post on this ]
But my objective in the question what might be late was whether IETF
may have defined late somewhere
we are [supposed to be] professionals of
On 11.7.2012 09:57 , John Leslie j...@jlc.net wrote:
Stephan Wenger st...@stewe.org wrote:
...
It is, in most cases, not to the advantage of a rightholder to disclose
a patent unless he is undeniably obligated to do so...
This is a really strange statement, at first blush.
So I ask
Hi,
Russ, can you explain why the IESG considers it necessary to tinker with
the Note Well?
As for the substance, I don't like the text for two reasons that can be
found inline.
Stephan
On 11.6.2012 10:00 , IETF Chair ch...@ietf.org wrote:
The IESG is considering a revision to the NOTE WELL
a hard one (six months or
something like this).
Stephan
Russ
On Nov 6, 2012, at 1:27 PM, Stephan Wenger wrote:
Hi,
Russ, can you explain why the IESG considers it necessary to tinker with
the Note Well?
As for the substance, I don't like the text for two reasons that can be
found
On 11.6.2012 16:17 , Scott O Bradner s...@sobco.com wrote:
On Nov 6, 2012, at 10:54 AM, Fred Baker (fred) f...@cisco.com wrote:
Not being a lawyer, I can't comment on the legal details of IPR cases.
What I am looking at is the understandability of a statement. A lawyer
that I was speaking
On 11.6.2012 17:17 , Paul Wouters p...@cypherpunks.ca wrote:
On Tue, 6 Nov 2012, Stephan Wenger wrote:
So, to summarize, out of the 60 or so non-third-party disclosures that
have been made over the last 4+ months, only a few may or may not be
late; the rest almost certainly is not.
Do we
Overall I like this--enough wiggle-room to deal with situations we cannot
foresee now, but still sufficient guidance for the IESGs to come. One
small issue, inline.
Stephan
On 9.21.2012 13:45 , IETF Chair ch...@ietf.org wrote:
[...]
When an I-D is removed from the Public I-D Archive, a copy
Hi,
I support this statement, with the additions suggested by Sam Hartman,
John Klensin, and (most importantly) Brian Carpenter.
In addition, I would suggest adding clarifying text to the extent that
I-Ds will remain to be stored in non publicly accessible form, unless
removal is required by a
Lawyers may, in both cases.
Stephan
On 8.9.2012 09:45 , Worley, Dale R (Dale) dwor...@avaya.com wrote:
From: Dave Cridland [d...@cridland.net]
Does anyone other than historians honestly care what the original was?
Does anyone honestly care what last month's version of the source code
was?
On 6.22.2012 07:14 , Peter Saint-Andre stpe...@stpeter.im wrote:
Anything that you write, say, or discuss in the IETF, formally or
informally, either at an IETF meeting or in another IETF venue
such as a mailing list, is an IETF contribution. If you believe that
any contribution of
...@stpeter.im wrote:
On 6/22/12 8:45 AM, Stephan Wenger wrote:
On 6.22.2012 07:14 , Peter Saint-Andre stpe...@stpeter.im wrote:
Anything that you write, say, or discuss in the IETF, formally or
informally, either at an IETF meeting or in another IETF venue
such as a mailing list
Strike actively. It's a loophole and adds no value.
I don't know how a contribution can be controlled by
a patent.
Using related as the broadest possible term that IMO
may just be supported by BCP79:
If you believe that a patent controlled by your employer
or sponsor is related to
Oh, sorry. Incorrect citing. Too many messages in too short a time.
Stephan
On 6.22.2012 08:56 , Noel Chiappa j...@mercury.lcs.mit.edu wrote:
From: Stephan Wenger st...@stewe.org
Hi Noel,
Affiliate is overly broad, and undefined and therefore not
supported
by BCP79
Hi Peter,
On 6.22.2012 09:31 , Peter Saint-Andre stpe...@stpeter.im wrote:
On 6/22/12 10:03 AM, Stephan Wenger wrote:
If you are aware of a patent controlled by your employer
or sponsor that is related to your contribution, then you must
disclose that patent.
Why is it limited
Hi Russ, policy-folks,
I support the simplification of the Note Well.
Two concerns, one substantial and one nit, with respect to the language
proposed.
The use of the work know in the context of requiring a disclosure is IMO
substantially wrong. It should be believe. Two reasons. The
to me.
Stephan
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 21, 2012, at 7:01 PM, Stephan Wenger st...@stewe.org wrote:
Hi Russ, policy-folks,
I support the simplification of the Note Well.
Two concerns, one substantial and one nit, with respect to the language
proposed.
The use of the work know
Hi,
I want to thank Peter and Tim to take my comments into account in version
4 of this document. I'm happy with version this version.
Regards,
Stephan
On 4.30.2012 19:19 , Stephan Wenger st...@stewe.org wrote:
Hi,
Here are a few comments to this draft.
Stephan
(1) Section 3.1, final
Hi,
Here are a few comments to this draft.
Stephan
(1) Section 3.1, final paragraph. An IETF disclosure has to be made
against a Contribution. In the case described in this paragraph, the
Contribution may not have been made at the time of the Disclosure request,
and, therefore, it would be
Hi,
This subject was also raised by our AD on the codec mailing list. The
statement is about spec text copyright (with the possible exception of the
word use, which is loaded in this context, see BSD license and implicit
patent grant ambiguity). Insofar, the patent licensing statement received
Remember, this whole discussion is about a) taking pictures, and b)
publishing them. Avoid either, and we should be completely save. Do
both, and it still takes at least one person to take offense to the point
where he calls police or runs to a lawyer, proof, a judge finding that the
privacy
,
Stephan
You may, of course, ask the question of your working group in any way
you like. But I suggest you ask it in a way that allows you to
accurately answer the question asked in the PROTO template.
Barry, incoming Applications AD
Original Message
From: Stephan Wenger
Godaddy, basic domain hosting at $10 per .com, allows you to set an SPF
record.
Stephan
On 2.28.2012 17:56 , John R. Levine jo...@iecc.com wrote:
SPF is listed. http://dyn.com/dns/dns-comparison/
Hmmn, only on the premium $30/mo and up packages, not on the cheap ones.
There must be a moral
Confirmed. The menu option says add SPF, but you end up with a TXT
record.
Embarrassed,
Stephan
On 2.28.2012 21:11 , Scott Kitterman sc...@kitterman.com wrote:
On Wednesday, February 29, 2012 12:02:13 AM Hector wrote:
Scott Kitterman wrote:
On Wednesday, February 29, 2012 02:51:24 AM Stephan
Dear Hector,
I'm not quite sure that your understanding of the US patent law and MPEP
rules is inline with most patent practitioners, or that your post
otherwise make all that much sense.
First, the thing you are talking about are known as Markush Claim. From
MPEP, 803.02: A Markush-type claim
If the information presented in the document is historic the minute its
posted (because its a snapshot), why not post the doc as historic?
Stephan
On 12.16.2011 07:00 , Jari Arkko jari.ar...@piuha.net wrote:
Wes: I understand your concern, and it certainly has given us pause when
speaking about
Phillip,
Please see inline.
On 10.5.2011 13:25 , Phillip Hallam-Baker hal...@gmail.com wrote:
I have some issues with the way that the section on IPR is written.
While I agree with most of the statements there. I don't see my two
biggest IPR concerns listed.
1) Specific to this document, we
Vancouver is pretty expensive in summer. Can be twice the rate of November.
Weather.
Stephan
S.
Sent from my iPad
On Jun 20, 2011, at 21:49, Henk Uijterwaal henk.uijterw...@gmail.com wrote:
On 21/06/2011 03:24, Randall Gellens wrote:
At 3:55 AM +0200 6/20/11, Henk Uijterwaal wrote:
May I
It can, of course. Use D'Hondt or something to pick the next meeting venue.
Stephan
On 9.1.2010 08:24 , Ross Callon rcal...@juniper.net wrote:
Why does this have to be precisely on an integer-number year boundary?
Ross
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org
Go here: http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair
Enter the two words of the graphics challenge
Of the radio buttons, click on Application Number (this is the default)
Copy-paste the application number in the format 99/99 ...
And you will learn that the application is question is not yet
Uh. Yes.
Stephan
On 8.17.2010 10:49 , Michael StJohns mstjo...@comcast.net wrote:
This is an application number for a patent application filed between 93 and 97
(that's what the 08 at the beginning indicates). The USPTO doesn't keep these
online prior to 2001 as near as I can tell, but
Hi,
I think this is an excellent straw man for an IETF privacy policy. I have,
however, two issues with its adoption that makes me question the wisdom of
an unqualified +1.
First, I'm not quite sure whether the IETf should adopt such a document
without providing clear guidelines to its I*
Hi Fred,
I¹m not sure whether this (admittedly selective) quote would be fair to your
hypothetical collaborators:
On 4.8.2010 16:02 , Fred Baker f...@cisco.com wrote:
[...] I would be truly disappointed if someone I was collaborating with on a
draft or was working on a working group with me
While I see the burden and pain Russ mentions, I also want to note that
there is a distinct advantage of a joint project: the project would be bound
to the patent policies of both IETF and the other body (here: ITU).
In the specific case of the codec work, a joint project provides an
insurance
Hi Jean-Marc,
I don't think anything has been shown, with respect to IPR and RF
properties of the current input proposal documents. And I don't believe
anything conclusive will be shown, ever. At best, arguably, nothing
substantial has been shown against an RF claim of the input proposals.
Hi,
Russ' language is an improvement. But let's not forget that there are
encumbrances that have nothing to do with paying royalties, but are equally
problematic from an adoption viewpoint. Examples:
1. Co-marketing requirement: need to put a logo of the rightholder company
on one's products
Hi,
I would suggest to handle this issue calmly from here on.
In this specific case, even assuming validity of the patent, the rightholder
may already have a enforceability problem based on what I also perceive as a
clear IETF process violation. As the very minimum, if the patent were ever
/09 12:32 PM, ty...@mit.edu ty...@mit.edu wrote:
On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 10:51:16AM -0800, Stephan Wenger wrote:
The mechanisms to challenge the validity of a patent depend on the
legislation. In the US, one example is a request for re-examination. A
good foundation for such a request would
+1
Stephan
On 11/11/09 7:53 PM, Danny McPherson da...@tcb.net wrote:
Russ, Olaf, et al,
I was serious in my recommendation to experiment with limiting
question (comment) time at the microphone at plenaries. I believe
it'll not only help mere mortals pay more attention, but will also
I understand this as the documentation of what has been specified by the
original oAuth crowd, known as oAuth 1.0, which is out there and deployed.
AFAIK, the oAuth group is working on improvements and additions to this base
specification. From the charter:
[...]
This specifically means that as
Hi Doug,
I'm not sure where you are getting with your comment. I would count myself
as belonging into both of your categories. The IETF should not go to the
PRC (or any other country with a similarly questionable human rights, free
speech, and Internet restriction record) on principle, AND it
Hi Ole,
Yes, my email was aimed at your frequent postings on this subject in
combination with your current ISOC position. Let me note that most of your
postings on this subject, in my reading, implied (if not expressed) a
preference for a PRC IETF meeting.
That said, it's good that you
Hi,
Four remarks:
This is true, however there is another path that could be taken. Let the host
sign the contract. Then, engage with the PRC government, explain the situation
to them, and ask them to help avoid an embarrassing situation by providing
assurances in writing, to the IETF, the
Hi Ole,
I don't understand your last two sentences. Are you suggesting that what's
left to do is to arrange the China meeting within the constraints of the
contract, as proposed? Or are you suggesting that you need to go back and
attempt to re-negotiate that part of the contract?
Also, what
Hi,
A personal opinion:
I believe that the logistic concerns voiced here (cost, visa, air pollution,
freedom of network access for IETF business needs) should not be seen as a
deterrent and are not likely to be a practical problem. There are
associated problems and risks, and they are IMHO
Hi,
As it has been pointed out here often, the RFC series is more than just the
document numbering scheme for IETF standards. However, if you attend a
marketing gathering, a random CS conference, a non-IETF standardization
meeting, or even the IETF plenary, a majority of people (probably a large
it, for the small pragmatic gains we may get.
Regards,
Stephan
On 9/9/09 9:19 AM, Dave CROCKER d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
Stephan Wenger wrote:
This *perception* is important. And changing it means changing the
*perception* of a large number of people, for very little value except
honoring a 40 year
Hi Marshall, all,
This is a good proposal.
Would it be possible to enhance the review periods (steps 5 and 6) from
30/14 days to something like 60/30 days, respectively? Many people will
need to go through corporate counsel on matters like this, which can be time
consuming. 30 days is a quite
Hi Brian,
One can sit in a WG meeting for years, and never incur a disclosure
obligation under BCP78, correct? Just sitting there and not
saying/writing/contributing a thing does not trigger a disclosure
obligation. Same goes for merely being subscribed to a mailing list. This
is a major
and
inside the IETF context, you are in. If you don't, you are probably not in.
Regards,
Stephan
On 7/30/09 4:23 PM, Marc Petit-Huguenin petit...@acm.org wrote:
Stephan Wenger wrote:
Hi Brian,
One can sit in a WG meeting for years, and never incur a disclosure
obligation under BCP78
On 7/30/09 4:29 PM, Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com wrote:
[...]
That said, I'm in favor of keeping the blue sheets based on principles of
record retention. But their IPR impact, I believe, is rather limited.
If A asserts that B said something, and B denies having been
There are also comparatively cheap busses from ARN, for those
money-conscious folks who have time to waste. But in my limited experience,
the train is really the way to go.
Stephan
On 7/17/09 11:48 AM, Scott Brim scott.b...@gmail.com wrote:
btw the bus from Skavsta is less than half the cost
For a German, the most intuitive way to get to Maastricht would actually be
to go through Cologne, Dusseldorf, or Frankfurt. From Koeln or Duesseldorf
it should be around an hour by car---no more than two hours even considering
traffic. Both airport have a rather limited number of
frequently does a sensible proposal have to be made to receive a
susbstantive response?
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of Steven M. Bellovin
Sent: Mon 3/9/2009 6:40 PM
To: Stephan Wenger
Cc: SM; r...@gnu.org; ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Consensus Call for draft-housley-tls-authz
On 3/9/09 11:14 AM, Steven M. Bellovin s...@cs.columbia.edu wrote:
On Mon, 09 Mar 2009 11:07:10 -0700
SM s...@resistor.net wrote:
As the draft was not approved by the IESG as a Proposed Standard,
the fact is that most people in the IETF community would not consider
it as a proposed
Hi Larry,
As you know better than most here, including myself, W3C uses two very
different bodies to cope with IPR matters:
1. the PSIG, a standing committee, issues advise on policy interpretation
and maintains the policy FAQ. To the best of my knowledge, the PSDIG does
not look at individual
Hi,
On 2/11/09 3:21 PM, Bob Jolliffe bobjolli...@gmail.com wrote:
[...]
I think (I hope) their is a general consensus that IETF
standards should be freely implementable and usable for the manner in
which they are intended.
The phrase freely implementable and usable may be the key
Hi Simon,
On 2/11/09 4:43 PM, Simon Josefsson si...@josefsson.org wrote:
Stephan Wenger st...@stewe.org writes:
[...]
The way to address this misalignment is to work in the IETF
towards an FSF-compatible patent regime, and not rant about one specific
draft that somehow got on the FSF's
Hi Russ,
On 1/12/09 2:15 PM, Russ Housley hous...@vigilsec.com wrote:
[...]
The RFC Editor is asking the authors. That is the list of people
that is readily available. If the authors cannot speak for all
Contributors, then the document will have to wait until a work-around is
found.
In
Hi Simon, all,
Before some silence means approval assumption kicks in here, allow me to
voice my concerns again. I continue to believe that changing the current
practice (which allows the removal of disclosures form the IETF database) is
NOT a good thing. Don't get me wrong: I don't believe
Hi all,
Nokia is one of the companies which submitted a number of withdrawal
requests for previous disclosures. In no case (that I'm aware of) our
intention has been to sneak out of a licensing commitment. Instead, we
submitted withdrawal requests with the intention to keep the IETF patent
Hi John,
please note that the vast majority of IETF IPR disclosures promise patent
licenses only on technologies described in an I-D in the event that the I-D
becomes an IETF standard. This avoids the problems you mentioned nicely,
I think, at the expense of some uncertainty when people
Something rather obvious.
Stephan
On 4/11/08 7:32 AM, Marshall Eubanks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2. The Trustees shall select one Trustee to serve as the Chair of
the Trust.
a. The following Trustees are not eligible to serve as IETF Chair:
Hi Simon,
the case I was thinking about was this one:
http://www.consortiuminfo.org/standardsblog/article.php?story=20070323094639
964
Stephan
On 3/25/08 3:33 PM, Simon Josefsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[...]
If we learned that the anonymous posting actually
On Sep 25, 2007, at 11:21 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
[...]
I don't think it's fundamentally different from the IETF policy (that
is, RAND is acceptable).
Actually, per RFC 3978 and friends, the IETF does not even require a
RAND commitment. There have recently been cases where RFCs have
Hi janet, all,
Renting a car at the airport, and from an international rental car
company, is straightforward. More expensive than in the US, though.
I cannot advise the budget deals you may get from local companies or
individuals. Also keep in mind:
a) cars of a given rental car class
70 matches
Mail list logo
