Hi all,
Chris helped me brush up the ID, which I really appreciate. I am about
to publish a new version soon. There is one thing that Chris
recommended:
---
I'd like to suggest that Section 6.2.1.1 (Relation to Alarm
MIB) be dropped from this document. We discussed the request for this
relatio
Hi all,
I agree with Anton on all important issues. I've read the IPR claim and
what disturbs me the most is "unpublished pending patent application".
This sounds like someone took what we have been discussing (and is
widely deployed), brought it to a lawyer and is now trying to make some
patent o
On Thu, 2006-06-08 at 09:38 +0200, Rainer Gerhards wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I agree with Anton on all important issues. I've read the IPR claim and
> what disturbs me the most is "unpublished pending patent application".
> This sounds like someone took what we have been discussing (and is
> widely dep
I don't agree with putting all work on hold. Syslog-protocol and
syslog-transport-udp still make sense to standardize. And we could explore
syslog-transport-ssh, possibly soliciting input from IPR holders first.
Thanks,
Anton.
> -Original Message-
> From: Balazs Scheidler [mailto:[
Is the expectation that all 3 (protocol, transport-udp and transport-secure)
MUST be delivered together or none at all? Can't we do the first two first
while accommodating pluggable transports as we did? Then, figure out the
secure one. By that time the claims of the pending unpublished patent
Hi,
I am staying out of the debate, but I can answer Balzs's question
based on my experiences.
In the US patent system, it takes on the order of three to five years
for a patent to be granted.
I believe the applicant is permitted to not disclose the claims for
eighteen months.
But I am not a law
I'd vote to go forward with publication to standard to bring this out
into the open. This is probably one the sillies patents out and just
shows how fundamentally flawed the system really is.
--
Darren J Moffat
___
Syslog mailing list
Syslog@lists.i
Hi,
On Thu, 8 Jun 2006, Balazs Scheidler wrote:
On Thu, 2006-06-08 at 09:38 +0200, Rainer Gerhards wrote:
I think using a patented technology inside a standard will definitely
hinder the acceptance of that standard. Especially if it is something as
trivial as syslog over tls. So my vote is t
Anton,
I see your point. But remember that the IESG forced us to provide a
secure transport, which IMHO will be the most-violated part of
syslog-protocol once it is a RFC (meaning that -prototocol and
-transport-udp will be implemented but not -tls). SSH still seems to be
not a good option in my p
First, have you looked at the updated IPR disclosure?
You can work on udp and -protocol, and you can even update your
milestones to reflect that. You can get as far as sending me a
publication request for these documents. However I will not take the
documents to the IESG without a security solut
FWIW: I agree with Chris proposal and intended course of action.
Rainer
> -Original Message-
> From: Chris Lonvick [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 5:27 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [Syslog] Draft-ietf-syslog-transport-tls-01.txt
>
Hi,
I have been told that Huawei patents date back no longer than 2001. This
seems to confirm it:
http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=2&u
=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=0&f=S&l=50&d=PG01&s1=HUAWEI&Page
=Next&OS=HUAWEI&RS=HUAWEI
Also, David said "I believ
12 matches
Mail list logo
