So there's no claim at all that this particular IPR is relevant to any of the
content of the IBE IDs? Is that an accurate summary of this comment?
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ietf-smime(_at_)mail(_dot_)imc(_dot_)org [mailto:owner-ietf-
smime(_at_)mail(_dot_)imc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Russ Housley
Sent: Monday, October 27, 2008 7:40 AM
To: ietf-smime(_at_)imc(_dot_)org
Cc: iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; chair(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; TS Glassey
Subject: Re: IETF IBE efforts
S/MIME WG:
Please note the attached claim. The referenced IPR statement can be
found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/201/
Note that there are other IPR statements that update IPR statement
201 in the repository that can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/
Russ
At 09:15 PM 10/26/2008, TS Glassey wrote:
FWIW, many IBE (Identity Based Encryption) systems which the IETF
could come to implement will infringe on the Glassey McNeil IPR 201
posting. How this works is that since IP Addresses are encoded into
the PKI model in a number of models whether in the DOMAIN ADDRESS
TOKEN form or in the actual IP ADDRESS form, they are 'location
specific controls used in encrypting and decrypting data' - which
qualifies as a use model under our Patent, 6,370,629.
Thanks for taking this notice as well.
TS Glassey