Sign in
Version 5.4.0, 2014-04-22
Report a bug

Andrew Sullivan's Statement about IPR related to RFC 4405, RFC 4406, RFC 4407, and RFC 4408 belonging to Microsoft Corporation

Only those sections of the "Patent Disclosure and Licensing Declaration Template for Notification" where the submitter provided information are displayed.

Update this IPR disclosure. Note: Updates to IPR disclosures must only be made by authorized representatives of the original submitters. Updates will automatically be forwarded to the current Patent Holder's Contact and to the Submitter of the original IPR disclosure.

Submitted Date: February 28, 2012

I. Possible Patent Holder/Applicant ("Patent Holder")
Legal Name: Microsoft Corporation
II. Contact Information for the IETF Participant Whose Personal Belief Triggered this Disclosure:
Name: Andrew Sullivan
Telephone: +1 519 694 5149
III. IETF Document or Other Contribution to Which this IPR Disclosure Relates:
RFC 4405:"SMTP Service Extension for Indicating the Responsible Submitter of an E-Mail Message"
RFC 4406:"Sender ID: Authenticating E-Mail"
RFC 4407:"Purported Responsible Address in E-Mail Messages"
RFC 4408:"Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in E-Mail, Version 1"
IV. Disclosure of Patent Information (i.e., patents or patent applications required to be disclosed by Section 6 of RFC 3979)
A. For granted patents or published pending patent applications, please provide the following information:
Patent, Serial, Publication, Registration, or Application/File number(s): No idea. See and
Date(s) granted or applied for: 2006
Country: US
Additional Notes:

See and

Note that the form insisted I fill in the above; I have no idea whether any of it is right. Please see the links for the information I have.

I think Microsoft registered their IPR against MARID forms of the I-Ds, and the ones that were published were not those.

B. Does this disclosure relate to an unpublished pending patent application?: NO
C. If an Internet-Draft or RFC includes multiple parts and it is not reasonably apparent which part of such Internet-Draft or RFC is alleged to be covered by the patent information disclosed in Section V(A) or V(B), it is helpful if the discloser identifies here the sections of the Internet-Draft or RFC that are alleged to be so covered:
No information submitted