I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html).
Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.
Document: draft-klensin-ftp
On Nov 21, 2009, at 4:38 AM, Contreras, Jorge wrote:
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On
Behalf Of Fred Baker
Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2009 8:53 PM
To: Michael Montemurro
Cc: Cullen Jennings; IETF-Discussion list
Subject: Re: RIM paten
>> From: "Andrew Allen"
>> To:
>> Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2009 6:11 PM
>> Subject: Regarding RIM's recent IPR disclosures
>> ...
>> This transmission (including any attachments) may contain confidential
>> information, privileged material (including material protected by the
>> solicitor-cl
> -Original Message-
> From: Contreras, Jorge
> Sent: Friday, November 20, 2009 2:38 PM
> To: 'Fred Baker'; Michael Montemurro
> Cc: Cullen Jennings; IETF-Discussion list
> Subject: RE: RIM patents a URN (and ignores IETF IPR rules)
>
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: iet
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On
> Behalf Of Fred Baker
> Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2009 8:53 PM
> To: Michael Montemurro
> Cc: Cullen Jennings; IETF-Discussion list
> Subject: Re: RIM patents a URN (and ignores IETF IPR rules)
>
>
Unfortunately, many corporate email systems, including at a former
employer of mine, automatically add these to every outgoing email, and
individual employees have no control over it nor any way to change the
corporate policy. Which is one of the reasons why I use non-work email
for my IETF work.
Andrew,
In this particular case, the patent was published on Jan. 4, 2007, so
it's difficult to imagine any valid reason to not have disclosed then.
Cheers,
Andy
On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 9:11 PM, Andrew Allen wrote:
>
>
> With regard to the recent discussion on the IETF-Discussion list regarding
Unfortunately, many corporate email systems, including at a former
employer of mine, automatically add these to every outgoing email, and
individual employees have no control over it nor any way to change the
corporate policy. Which is one of the reasons why I use non-work email
for my IETF work.
In this particular case, the patent was published on Jan. 4, 2007, so
it's difficult to imagine any valid reason to not have disclosed then.
Cheers,
Andy
On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 8:52 PM, Fred Baker wrote:
> In my company's case, we file IPR disclosures on patent applications as well
> as allowed
John-Luc:
I am sending this note to help you understand the IETF IPR policies;
they are fully described in BCP 79
(http://www.ietf.org/rfc/bcp/bcp79.txt). I hope this note clarifies
the responsibilities of RIM employees (and anyone else) who
participate in IETF.
IETF participants engage as
Hi,
We have obviously had a lengthy process around the update to RFC 3932.
Including some heated discussion and differing opinions. The document
specifies IESG procedures for checking RFC editor submissions for
conflicts with IETF work. We have already earlier resolved the issue of
whether th
11 matches
Mail list logo
