Re: [DNSOP] [dns-privacy] Qname minimization IPR

2014-10-25 Thread Paul Vixie 


> Warren Kumari 
> Saturday, October 25, 2014 2:10 PM
>
>
> On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 2:27 PM, Paul Vixie  > wrote:
>
>
>
>> Paul Hoffman 
>> Saturday, October 25, 2014 11:06 AM
>>
>> 1) It is a patent application, not a patent.
>> 2) The application was filed by Verisign, not Google.
>>
>> --Paul Hoffman
>
> thanks. however, i was told google also has one on Q-M. that's the
> one i thought this thread referred to.
>
>
>
> Just an explicit "I personally do not know of any qname minimization
> patent(s) that Google has".
>
> I had heard some rumors of a Google patent regarding prepending nonces
> to add entropy, but that's completely different.
now that i read both (http://www.google.com/patents/US8484377) i see
that warren is correct.

i'll stand by my other statement-- verisign should be asked to put their
Q-M work (http://www.google.com/patents/EP266A1) into defensive-only
use.

-- 
Paul Vixie
___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

Re: [DNSOP] [dns-privacy] Qname minimization IPR

2014-10-25 Thread Warren Kumari 
On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 2:27 PM, Paul Vixie  wrote:

>
>
>   Paul Hoffman 
>  Saturday, October 25, 2014 11:06 AM
>
> 1) It is a patent application, not a patent.
> 2) The application was filed by Verisign, not Google.
>
> --Paul Hoffman
>
>
> thanks. however, i was told google also has one on Q-M. that's the one i
> thought this thread referred to.
>


Just an explicit "I personally do not know of any qname minimization
patent(s) that Google has".

I had heard some rumors of a Google patent regarding prepending nonces to
add entropy, but that's completely different.

W


>
> if verisign tries to enforce their patent against google, i will buy
> popcorn, sit back, and watch.
>
> i do not believe that verisign's interests are aligned with enforcement of
> a patent like this one.
>
> verisign should be asked to place a defense-only status on this patent. i
> think they will do so.
>
> --
> Paul Vixie
>
> ___
> DNSOP mailing list
> DNSOP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
>
>


-- 
I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad idea in
the first place.
This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair of
pants.
   ---maf
___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

Re: [DNSOP] [dns-privacy] Qname minimization IPR

2014-10-25 Thread Paul Vixie 


> Paul Hoffman 
> Saturday, October 25, 2014 11:06 AM
>
> 1) It is a patent application, not a patent.
> 2) The application was filed by Verisign, not Google.
>
> --Paul Hoffman

thanks. however, i was told google also has one on Q-M. that's the one i
thought this thread referred to.

if verisign tries to enforce their patent against google, i will buy
popcorn, sit back, and watch.

i do not believe that verisign's interests are aligned with enforcement
of a patent like this one.

verisign should be asked to place a defense-only status on this patent.
i think they will do so.

-- 
Paul Vixie
___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

Re: [DNSOP] [dns-privacy] Qname minimization IPR

2014-10-25 Thread Paul Hoffman 
On Oct 25, 2014, at 10:53 AM, Paul Vixie  wrote:
>> http://www.google.com/patents/EP266A1?cl=en 
>> 
> 
> importantly, google's policy is to use patents only in defense. i've 
> requested that they make that explicit in the case of this particular patent, 
> but, that's a small detail.

1) It is a patent application, not a patent.
2) The application was filed by Verisign, not Google.

--Paul Hoffman
___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

Re: [DNSOP] [dns-privacy] Qname minimization IPR

2014-10-25 Thread Phillip Hallam-Baker 
Paul,

It is a VeriSign patent, its just being shown on the Google patent serach
engine

On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 1:53 PM, Paul Vixie  wrote:

>
>
>   Stephane Bortzmeyer 
>  Saturday, October 25, 2014 2:24 AM
> [Copy to dnsop since the qname minimisation draft is now a WG item at
> dnsop.]
>
> On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 10:21:57AM -0700,
> David Conrad   wrote
>
> http://www.google.com/patents/EP266A1?cl=en
>
>
> importantly, google's policy is to use patents only in defense. i've
> requested that they make that explicit in the case of this particular
> patent, but, that's a small detail. i believe that query minimization
> should proceed as though this patent did not exist, for the good of the
> internet economy. (if it fails to reach consensus that's a different
> matter, but, let it not be because of this patent.)
>
> --
> Paul Vixie
>
> ___
> DNSOP mailing list
> DNSOP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
>
>
___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

Re: [DNSOP] [dns-privacy] Qname minimization IPR

2014-10-25 Thread Paul Vixie 


> Stephane Bortzmeyer 
> Saturday, October 25, 2014 2:24 AM
> [Copy to dnsop since the qname minimisation draft is now a WG item at
> dnsop.]
>
> On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 10:21:57AM -0700,
> David Conrad  wrote
>
> http://www.google.com/patents/EP266A1?cl=en

importantly, google's policy is to use patents only in defense. i've
requested that they make that explicit in the case of this particular
patent, but, that's a small detail. i believe that query minimization
should proceed as though this patent did not exist, for the good of the
internet economy. (if it fails to reach consensus that's a different
matter, but, let it not be because of this patent.)

-- 
Paul Vixie
___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

Re: [DNSOP] [dns-privacy] Qname minimization IPR

2014-10-25 Thread Rubens Kuhl 

> On Oct 25, 2014, at 2:03 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker  
> wrote:
> 
> The claims are broad, not specific to one field of use.
> 
> But there isn't a patent yet and they may have been waiting to file after 
> grant.
> 
> It is possible for someone other than the IPR holder to file but best if its 
> the IPR holder.
> 
> The mere existence of a patent does not necessarily mean an intention to 
> enforce. 
>  

Verisign has been telling its investors that they have intention to enforce and 
monetize patents. Excerpts from their SEC filings and investor calls can be 
found at:

http://domainnamewire.com/2013/01/25/heads-up-competing-registries-verisign-might-start-asserting-its-patents/
 

http://domainnamewire.com/2014/09/24/verisigns-standards-group-patents/ 



Rubens



___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

Re: [DNSOP] [dns-privacy] Qname minimization IPR

2014-10-25 Thread Phillip Hallam-Baker 
The claims are broad, not specific to one field of use.

But there isn't a patent yet and they may have been waiting to file after
grant.

It is possible for someone other than the IPR holder to file but best if
its the IPR holder.

The mere existence of a patent does not necessarily mean an intention to
enforce.


On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 11:51 AM, Stephen Farrell  wrote:

>
>
> On 25/10/14 15:56, Ted Lemon wrote:
> > And also if anyone from Verisign is participating, they are required to
> disclose,
>
> Well, only if they think that the IPR is relevant. Their claims
> (I've not read 'em) could after all be unrelated to the draft,
> e.g. if they've only claimed some madly complicated way of getting
> the same effect as just leaving stuff out (which no doubt the
> USPTO might still, in their infinite wisdom, consider patentable;-).
>
> S.
>
> ___
> DNSOP mailing list
> DNSOP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
>
___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

Re: [DNSOP] [dns-privacy] Qname minimization IPR

2014-10-25 Thread Stephen Farrell 


On 25/10/14 15:56, Ted Lemon wrote:
> And also if anyone from Verisign is participating, they are required to 
> disclose,

Well, only if they think that the IPR is relevant. Their claims
(I've not read 'em) could after all be unrelated to the draft,
e.g. if they've only claimed some madly complicated way of getting
the same effect as just leaving stuff out (which no doubt the
USPTO might still, in their infinite wisdom, consider patentable;-).

S.

___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

Re: [DNSOP] [dns-privacy] Qname minimization IPR

2014-10-25 Thread Ted Lemon 
On Oct 25, 2014, at 5:24 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer  wrote:
> Back to IETF issues: can someone who have read RFC 3979 more
> thoroughly than me tell me if, as the draft author, I'm supposed to
> file the IPR disclosure or is it up to Verisign employees?

You should, not must, file a third-party disclosure; you could ask Danny 
McPherson to file one so you don't have to, but one way or another the IPR 
disclosure needs to happen so people don't step on a land mine.   You are not 
obligated by the note well to do this--it's just the right thing to do, IMHO.   
Of course, now that we all know about it, anyone who's read this mail could in 
principle file the third-party disclosure.   And also if anyone from Verisign 
is participating, they are required to disclose, because after this discussion 
they should be aware of the patent even if they weren't previously.

___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

Re: [DNSOP] [dns-privacy] Qname minimization IPR

2014-10-25 Thread Stephane Bortzmeyer 
[Copy to dnsop since the qname minimisation draft is now a WG item at
dnsop.]

On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 10:21:57AM -0700,
 David Conrad  wrote 
 a message of 56 lines which said:

> http://www.google.com/patents/EP266A1?cl=en

Well, some resolvers (the programs which will have to implement qname
m12n) are maintained in Europe (for instance Unbound) so they can
safely ignore these patents


Back to IETF issues: can someone who have read RFC 3979 more
thoroughly than me tell me if, as the draft author, I'm supposed to
file the IPR disclosure or is it up to Verisign employees?


___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop