[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: IBM US Patent #5,148,479




Bill Simpson says:

> > From: "Perry E. Metzger" <perry@imsi.com>
> > This would be a
> > sufficiently public declaration that it would probably make a number
> > of people calmer. I'll point out that this isn't unprecedented --
> > other organizations have produced similar RFCs in the past.
> >
> No, Perry, I respectfully disagree.  The proper procedure listed in
> RFC-1602 is that the memo be sent to the Secretariate.
>
> A RFC is a Request For Comments, and contains technical IP (Internet
> Protocol, not Intellectual Property) information.

I agree. However, since Perry raised this request, we try to consult Jeff
Schiller to see if an RFC is really necessary/useful/appropriate in addition
to our note to the list and the letter. (I know that John planned to send a
letter, I'm not sure if he already sent it.)

I am happy to see that you are now satisfied with the letter as posted.
I always believe that difficulties could be worked out if both parties are
cooperative and communicating in a rational way. Sometimes one party suffices.

Best, Amir

Amir Herzberg
Manager, Network Security Group, IBM T. J. Watson Research Center
Fax 914-784-6205