On 11.02.2009, at 14:16, Theodore Tso wrote:
So your statement is that the patent claim is invalid, because of
prior art? If so we are not 100% sure unless someone questions the
patent claim in court - Volunteers ;-).
No, actually. Point 3 is very tightly constrained to certain types of
Agreements, where Agreements is defined in point 2. Point 4 is about
countersigning authorizations, presumably with the intention of
forwawrding them to a 3rd party. There is plenty of prior art for
point 4 all by itself (Kerberos V5, for one, and it was certainly not
the first system to do that).
I think the difference is that the authorization is exchanged as part
of the setup rather then over the established channel, but as Sam
Hartmann pointed out there may be other use cases for these protocol
extensions so I think the best way to advance with the document would
be to run it again in the TLS working group.
There are plenty of ways in which authorization data could be passed
via TLS that would clearly not violate RedPhone Security's claimed
patent claims. There is over 30 years of prior art involving
cryptographically sealed authorization data that could be passed via
this protocol extension.
Platform Infrastructure Manager
Colt Telecom GmbH
DDI: +49 (0)69 56606 2780 Internal OneDial: 8 491 2780
Fax: +49 (0)69 56606 6280
Data | Voice | Managed Services
Schütze Deine Umwelt | Erst denken, dann drucken
COLT Telecom GmbH, Herriotstraße 4, 60528 Frankfurt/Main, Deutschland
* Tel +49 (0)69 56606 0 * Fax +49 (0)69 56606 2222 *
Geschäftsführer: Dr. Jürgen Hernichel (Vors.), Rita Thies *
Amtsgericht Frankfurt/Main HRB 46123 * USt.-IdNr. DE 197 498 400
Ietf mailing list