> On Wed, 3 Aug 2005 05:20:25 -0400,
> Brian Haberman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> As mentioned during the IPv6 WG meeting, the chairs are soliciting
> implementation reports for IPv6 Privacy Addresses in support of moving
> the spec
> to Draft Standard. The following template sho
> On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 10:29:04 -0800,
> Erik Nordmark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> I'm afraid you misunderstood my point. (Perhaps the additional
>> question obscured the main point...) My main question is:
>>
>> In my understanding, if either of the flags of a particular rule is
>> of
> On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 10:27:09 -0800,
> Erik Nordmark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> I'm not really sure what "to only define a single AI flag", but yes,
>> I'm still concerned about having separate flags for both PUBLIC and
>> TMP (and so on).
> FWIW I don't understand the first part of t
Hi,
Sorry to follow myself up, but I have further information
which may be relevant to establishment of prior art for
IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconf.
The previous e-mails' description of existing published
documents may only describe 102(a) prior art, (As
described by PUBPAT's own information o
Hi Margaret,
I'm not sure how this affects the IPR notification,
but I've had a quick look at existing art available
at the time of the patent application.
There are existing specifications of IPv6 autonomous
address configuration in published drafts which
significantly predate the patent applic
FYI --
The official disclosure will probably be posted by the secretariat
shortly, but in the meantime I thought that the IPv6 WG should be
aware of this incoming IPR notification.
Margaret
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 12:01:49 -0400
From: Dan Ravicher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
X-Accept-Language: en-u
