RE: RFC3161(TSP): doubts about tcp protocol

[Carlisle Adams <carlisle.adams@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Todd,

I've deleted all the text that has too many errors -- or is just plain too
"off-the-wall" -- to be worth a response.

See my one response below, prefixed by [Carlisle].


-----Original Message-----
From: todd glassey [mailto:todd.glassey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2006 4:22 PM
To: Stephen Kent
Cc: Ricardo Barroso; Gianluca Ramunno; ietf-pkix@xxxxxxx;
housley@xxxxxxxxxxxx; Lynn St.Amour; poised@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: RFC3161(TSP): doubts about tcp protocol

> Or maybe in this case the
> authors of RFC3161 and their company's should be paying for having a 
> legal opinion rendered since they and you claim that the use of their 
> technology does not violate these larger-picture patents - Eh Carlisle - 
> how about it? Does Sharon have budget for this?

[Carlisle]  You need to check your facts before throwing accusations around.
The actual truth is that I have never made any such claim, period.  Most
people know better than to publicly volunteer patent opinions one way or
another with respect to their employer's technologies, and I count myself in
that group.  As for Sharon, she is a colleague of mine and has no control
whatsoever over Entrust budget.  I can't help it if you like to dream things
up and then believe them, but you need to be careful when you begin to spout
them in public fora.  I'll thank you to retract your statement.  Now.


> just my 2 cents

[Carlisle]  That's more than I would pay for it.

Carlisle.