[cabf_validation] [cabfPAG] Domain Validation Methods Proposal

[Jeremy Rowley]

Ah – thank. But how do you discuss whether there is patent issues without first discussing the patents disclosed?

From: Ryan Sleevi [mailto:sleevi at google.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2015 1:53 PM
To: Jeremy Rowley
Cc: kirk_hall at trendmicro.com; pag at cabforum.org; validation at cabforum.org
Subject: Re: [cabfPAG] Domain Validation Methods Proposal



On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 12:46 PM, Jeremy Rowley <jeremy.rowley at digicert.com<mailto:jeremy.rowley at digicert.com>> wrote:
Isn’t the PAG convening primarily to review the disclosed patents and make a recommendation on current work product based on the disclosures?

No.

See https://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/2015-July/005744.html

The specific request for the PAG is to make sure there's a common understanding about how the IPR policy even applies to Section 3.2.2.4, how the disclosures under the current policy work, and about how both the existing and proposed work for 3.2.2.4 is scoped in relation to the IPR policy.

Once there is some common agreement on these issues - and as discussed on the call, they are actually subtle and 'non-obvious' - recommendations can be put forward.

However, it's fruitless to evaluate whether the current disclosures represent concerns with 3.2.2.4 precisely because there's fundamental concern and understandably multiple interpretations about how our existing IPR policy applies to the existing 3.2.2.4
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://cabforum.org/pipermail/validation/attachments/20150729/ebb1528c/attachment.html