On 03/19/2013 11:04 PM, Stewart Bryant wrote:
Margret this is the IETF, it regularly sets aside law to create its own
lies about what it is and is not capable of in a legal context - but
that is all about to change I think...
Todd
On 19/03/2013 12:59, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
On Mar 12,
I would suggest John that the real diversity the IETF needs is
transparency in its process and a competent IPR rule set which meets the
same set of legal hurdles people do in the commercial world so to speak.
I would also suggest that the idea of splitting all of these
contractually binding
On 03/20/2013 07:16 AM, Jorge Contreras wrote:
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 6:53 AM, Margaret Wasserman
m...@lilacglade.org mailto:m...@lilacglade.org wrote:
Jorge - did I miss something here - isnt this your job? If not why are
you here?
Let me respond that further - I believe that there
On 03/20/2013 12:18 PM, Eric Burger wrote:
How much is the concentration of corporate participation in the IETF a result
of market forces, like consolidation and bankruptcy, as opposed to nefarious
forces, like a company hiring all of the I* leadership? We have mechanisms to
deal with the
Lawrence Rosen wrote:
Because Larry - many of those here owe their ongoing $$$ livelihood to
the lie the IETF has become. And so what you are suggesting is
increasing the rolls of the unemployed by adding these individuals who's
whole existence is the IETF. Its also these people in my opinion
Since this appears as a part of the legal boilerplate on a I-D I have
three questions to ask..
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.
So then by US Law they are copyright under the US Copyright act since
TSG wrote:
Since this appears as a part of the legal boilerplate on a I-D I have
three questions to ask..
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.
So then by US Law they are copyright under the US Copyright act
. So these reasons are proper reasons to oppose a draft.
When pro-patent forces argue that RFC3979 isn't the policy of the IETF,
they are merely being dishonest.
--Dean
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009, TSG wrote:
Carsten Bormann wrote:
http://www.fsf.org/news/reoppose-tls
Carsten Bormann wrote:
http://www.fsf.org/news/reoppose-tls-authz-standard
While I have a lot of sympathy for the cause, I have very little
sympathy for the methods.
I have NO sympathy for the cause.
Rendering a mailing list that might be useful for actually resolving
the issue inoperative
Lawrence Rosen wrote:
Steven, thanks very much for your email. My comments are below. /Larry
Larry - it is inappropriate for the IETF to be creating hurdles for
those that are unwilling to support the mandatory new licensing
requirements considering those are not part of the original or
Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 13:17:39 -0800
Lawrence Rosen lro...@rosenlaw.com wrote:
Rather than a standing board (which was what I thought you had
intended),
[LR:] I had indeed intended a standing board, and still do. Why have
to agitate and recruit an expert
Michael Dillon wrote:
FSF is very well intentioned; don't understand me to say otherwise. That
said, I think their view on IPR is pretty extreme - no IPR is acceptable.
Perhaps that is their view as an organization, but if the IETF engages
with the FSF to get individuals involved in the
Paul Hoffman wrote:
At 2:11 PM -0800 2/16/09, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
Let's forget the past; I acknowledge we lost that argument then among those
few who bothered to hum.
Many of us have heard this in various technical working groups when people who
didn't get their way come back
John Levine wrote:
But are the 1,000 or so emails in recent days from the FSF campaign
not a loud enough hum to recognize that our IPR policy is out of
tune?
Are you really saying that all it takes is a mob motivated by an
misleading screed to make the IETF change direction?
Yes -
Joel Jaeggli wrote:
Keith Moore wrote:
Marshall Eubanks wrote:
If I am reading this correctly the UK Centre for the Protection of
National Infrastructure
wants the IETF (or some other body) to produce a companion document to
the IETF specifications that discusses the security aspects
Simon Josefsson wrote:
Jari Arkko jari.ar...@piuha.net writes:
Simon,
That's not possible because the IETF policies does not permit free
software compatible licensing on Internet drafts published by the IETF.
...
See RFC 5378:
It is also important to note
Folks because of the problems with GPS the LORAN system and a new
location based encrypted LORAN is emerging. But there is an opportunity
to expand that and layer PPP or some other rudimentary stack atop the
LORAN transport
Anyone else interested?
Todd Glassey
Simon Josefsson wrote:
Jari Arkko jari.ar...@piuha.net writes:
Harald, Margaret, and Simon,
Harald wrote
actually that's intended to be permitted by RFC 5377 section 4.2:
and Margaret wrote:
However, I don't think that anyone actually believes that the IETF
will track
There is a serious concern that when individuals are 'filtered out of
IETF lists' whether by official or unofficial means, that their voices
are prevented from being included into the IETF standards process. Are
there any thoughts on how filters in mailing lists should be documented?
Todd
Scott Brim wrote:
Excerpts from Cullen Jennings on Tue, Feb 10, 2009 09:40:55AM -0700:
On Feb 9, 2009, at 6:20 PM, Scott Brim wrote:
Dean's mail does not hurt any of us. OK, it does take a minute of
our time to unsubscribe but that's it.
In my opinion it is not alright for
Ed Juskevicius wrote:
The IETF Trustees met via telechat on February 5th to decide on some
proposed revisions to the Legal Provisions Relating to IETF
Documents policy, based on comments received from the community in
the last two weeks. Please recall this work is being done to provide
a
Clint Chaplin wrote:
On 1/23/09, TSG tglas...@earthlink.net wrote:
Contreras, Jorge wrote:
Why not just ask them???. All authors have a responsibility to maintain
their contact info, otherwise it is easily argued that they abandoned their
claims in that IP.
Were
Contreras, Jorge wrote:
No, absolutely not. Use of pre-5378 materials in the IETF standards
process has never been an issue, only use outside the IETF is
problematic (ie, allowed under 5378 but not the earlier rules).
Jorge - if the contributor's in a RC2026 controlled submission choose
Contreras, Jorge wrote:
Just as a simple for example: what is the set of names that
needs to be
posted just to cover all of the boilerplate text we're
required to put in our
documents?
The boilerplate text is owned by the IETF Trust. No author permissions
are needed.
Hmm... seems to
Contreras, Jorge wrote:
Larry - thank you for your contribution!
I further want to comment that, as far as I can tell, it may
not even be
necessary to get *everyone* to sign. Here's the reason: Most
RFCs are joint
works. Quoting (FWIW) from my own book on the subject of licensing:
In
Marshall Eubanks wrote:
On Jan 15, 2009, at 9:29 AM, Theodore Tso wrote:
On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 08:24:08AM -0500, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
On Jan 15, 2009, at 7:09 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
If someone stood up in a WG prior to whenever 5378 was
effective* and made a suggestion of some
John C Klensin wrote:
I have to agree with Andrew and Tom.
If someone stood up in a WG prior to whenever 5378 was
effective* and made a suggestion of some length, or made a
lengthy textual suggestion on a mailing list, and I copied that
suggestion into a draft without any paraphrasing, a
Contreras, Jorge wrote:
All -- It's been pointed out to me that I may have been answering the
wrong question, or at least only a subset of the full question, in my
posting of last night, so I'll clarify below in some detail.
But first, for those whom I haven't met before, you should know that
Russ Housley wrote:
Russ the phrase COUNSEL reviewed the text is meaningless from a legal
standpoint without specifically asking particular questions. So what is
it exactly that the Counsel reviewed and is willing to issue a formal
opinion on?
Todd Glassey
John:
I think that the cover
John C Licensing wrote:
Larry,
You sent me an off-list note on this subject last night, at
around 9:30PM my time. When last I checked, this was a weekend
and some of us do not spent all of weekend evenings reading and
responding to email. When your note caught up with me, it was
even later
Lawrence Rosen wrote:
John Leslie wrote:
I may not be the one to explain, but I _don't_ think that's what
the proposal calls for. I think it calls for inclusion of the
boilerplate I listed above, which simply disclaims knowledge of
_whether_ all the rights of 5378 are granted (and thus
Douglas Otis wrote:
On Jan 9, 2009, at 12:48 PM, Lisa Dusseault wrote:
Hi Doug,
Does anybody support your review of sender-auth-header, to the point
of believing that the document should not be published? So far you
are still very much in the rough part of rough consensus.
thanks,
Lisa
Toni Stoev wrote:
Hi,
DNS job
When a connection to a network node is to be initiated its DNS name is resolved
to an IP address which shows the location of the node on the network. So
network nodes are findable by name even if their locations change.
I think you are backwards... The nodes
Ed Juskevicius wrote:
Ed - you nor the rest of this list is going to like this retort but I
would ask that you read all of it prior to flushing the response.
The purpose of this message is twofold:
1) To summarize the issues that some members of our community
have experienced since the
Ray Pelletier wrote:
All
What does that mean to the contractual relationship to the IETF's
process for those IP's being evoplved inside it? Seems to me that place
a stop on anything places a stop on everything.
Todd
The trustees are aware of the problems with respect to the RFC 5378
Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
It depends on what level you are looking at the problem from
In my opinion, application layer systems should not make assumptions
that have functional (as opposed to performance) implications on the
inner semantics of IP addresses. From the functionality point of
macbroadcast wrote:
There are also numerous Federal Co-Development programs in the various
Excutive Branch agencies and they also must be included here because
those may also have outside privte commitments as well.
Todd Glassey
federal works
sorry for my might be oftopic comment, so
Russ Housley wrote:
Marshall:
My understanding (and IANAL and Jorge is welcome to correct me) is
that the IETF
does indeed have sufficient rights to allow re-use of IETF documents
within the IETF, and
that this is purely concerned with the power of granting modification
rights to other
FYI - the IETF IPR disclosure process doesn't work very well since GEOPRIV
directly violates our patent - see IPR notice #201.
Todd Glassey
- Original Message -
From: Eric Rescorla [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Mary Barnes [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL
Uh, Folks
DOMAIN NAMES cannot be reserved in that manner and this lawsuit from the US
District Court says so.
http://www.domainnamenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/express-media-express-corp-nd-ca.pdf
That's not going to fly. DOMAIN NAMES are IP and need to be registered as
TM's to protect
FYI - ALL of the commentary submitted to the IESG must be done so through a
process which includes it in the archive of that IP initiative or the IETF
will see itself in a world of hurt the first time it is litigated against
and it cannot produce documentation showing all of that material
- Original Message -
From: Robert Elz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: John C Klensin [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ietf@ietf.org;
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 12:51 AM
Subject: Re: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on
Folks - I don't want to extend Deans rant here because that's between him
and you.
...But as to the argument that the IETF has no member's. Sorry, the IETF ***
does *** in fact have member's - They are those parties bound under
contractual arrangement's with the IETF to participate formally in
-
From: TSG [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Fred Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Harald Tveit Alvestrand
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: IETF Discussion ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Monday, June 09, 2008 7:16 PM
Subject: Re: I mentioned once that certain actions of the IETF
maybecriminally prosecutable in nature...
Fred - you
44 matches
Mail list logo
