I don't think that this is the time to get into patent discussions. It
is far from clear that any patent claims can be granted to any party
over a protocol that is essentially a variation of PEM.
The only significant difference between PEM and DKIM is the adoption of
DNS based key records in a form that is very similar to the
opportunistic encryption crowd. Some people probably remember the
presentation I made to that group in which I described mechanisms based
on work that we had at that time reduced to practice which applied the
ideas of DNS based keying and DNS based security to email, http and
other protocols.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ietf-mailsig(_at_)mail(_dot_)imc(_dot_)org
[mailto:owner-ietf-mailsig(_at_)mail(_dot_)imc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Frank
Ellermann
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2005 12:48 PM
To: ietf-mailsig(_at_)imc(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: MASS BOF Agenda and Proposed charter
Michael Thomas wrote:
This is just for the BOF.
Okay, that's no problem then. I vaguely recall that William
announced a pending patent application for something in the
meta-signatures, and that's not yet listed on the IPR pages:
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/ipr_list.cgi>
The IPR-link "filed with the IETF" on the mipassoc-page is broken.
Could the draft charter declare all IPR issues as "off topic" pointing
to the IPR list ? IPR was a major pain in MARID (sure, I know that
banning it won't make it go away, but maybe it's possible to redirect it
somehow). Bye, Frank