datatracker.ietf.org
Sign in
Version 5.3.0, 2014-04-12
Report a bug

Eric Rescorla's Statement about IPR related to RFC 2246, RFC 4346, and draft-ietf-tls-rfc4346-bis-10 belonging to Netscape (now AOL)

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: August 7, 2008

I. Possible Patent Holder/Applicant ("Patent Holder")
Legal Name: Netscape (now AOL)
II. Contact Information for the IETF Participant Whose Personal Belief Triggered this Disclosure:
Name: Eric Rescorla
Title:
Department:
Address1:
Address2:
Telephone: 650-678-2350
Fax:
Email: ekr@rtfm.com
III. IETF Document or Other Contribution to Which this IPR Disclosure Relates:
RFC 2246:"The TLS Protocol Version 1.0"
RFC 4346:"The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol Version 1.1"
Internet-Draft:"The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol Version 1.2"
(draft-ietf-tls-rfc4346-bis-10)
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): 5,657,390
Date(s) granted or applied for: August 12, 1997
Country: US
Additional Notes:

RFC 2246 contains Netscape's licensing terms at the time,
in Appendix G.

B. Does this disclosure relate to an unpublished pending patent application?: NO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