Simon,
You observed:
Normal IPR disclosure process is to alert the IETF community via
the IETF
website that a patent has been filed. I mistakenly thought that
adding the
boilerplate IPR statement at the top of the ID was sufficient to
say what
needed to be said. However, I don't
Dean == Dean Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Dean On Mon, 2 Apr 2007, Sam Hartman wrote:
The IETf learned of Brown's patent application on 2006-11-29.
Dean Can you elaborate? From whom or what source did the IETF
Dean learn of the application?
The IETF learned through an
Harald,
I want to apologize again for screwing up the IPR disclosure process.
Normal IPR disclosure process is to alert the IETF community via the IETF
website that a patent has been filed. I mistakenly thought that adding the
boilerplate IPR statement at the top of the ID was sufficient to
Sam,
The keys in this hypothetical protocol are for network access and
giving them to authenticators for that purpose would seem to fall
under the key scope requirement.
These are not session keys so the text relating the session keys
is not applicable.
So the domino effect is the only
Dan == Dan Harkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Dan Sam,
Dan The keys in this hypothetical protocol are for network
Dan access and giving them to authenticators for that purpose
Dan would seem to fall under the key scope requirement.
Key scope means giving an authenticator a
The Path MTU Discovery WG (pmtud) in the Transport Area has concluded.
The IESG contact persons are Magnus Westerlund and Lars Eggert.
The mailing list will be closed.
+++
The PMTUD WG was chartered to work on two documents:
(1) a standards-track document that describes a robust method for
