On Wed, 8 Feb 2017, John Levine wrote:
It's not a patent, it's a patent application, and if you read the first page of the application, it claims priority from a provisional application dated March 15, 2013, which is earlier than July.
https://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg00272.html Nov 2012. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-fanf-dane-mua-00 June 27, 2012.
You might want to reread the application. If you say that a S/MIME certificate expresses policies, which is not much of a stretch in patent-ese, then this applies directly to publishing a bunch of DNSSEC signed certificates.
We seem to agree the patent application is not specific to email and thus only affects the smime draft based on its very generic concept.
I agree that the application is pretty weak, and there is probably lots of prior art, but I'd also note that an e-mail message from long ago saying that one wanted to do something is not necessarily prior art if you can't show that someone actually did it. I would also note that it is an application, not a patent, and many, perhaps most, applications never turn into patents. But it's definitely relevant.
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ipseckey-rr-00 Published March 30, 2003 Although the implementation predates even that: http://www.freeswan.org/oldnews.html 2001/06/22 We would like to announce that the Linux FreeS/WAN project has now released version 1.91 of our IPSEC system. The BIG news for the 1.91 release is that you can now begin to use Opportunistic Encryption!
FYI, there are also patent applications pending in Europe and China.
Still not impressed. This whole exercise is a waste of everyone's time and Verisign should just put a stop to it. Paul _______________________________________________ dane mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dane
