"Keith" == Keith Moore <moore(_at_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu> writes:
Keith> RSA can complain "but that's *our* protocol", and IETF will
Keith> duly record that complaint, but that by itself won't stop
Keith> IETF from considering whether to use it.
Childish.
It's not RSA complaining "it's our protocol" that people are
concerned about - it's the threat of a lawsuit targeting
anyone who's IMPLEMENTING this as you say "protocol"
without RSADSI license.
Keith> To me the more interesting question is: assuming a working
Keith> group received assurance from IESG that it would be allowed
Keith> to publish an S/MIME spec that referenced someone else's
Keith> RC2 specification, would it be able to reach consensus that
Keith> this was the Right Thing to do?
Sure, as long as IESG assures the WG that it will pay for a lawyer to
defend an implementor of this "published spec" from a lawsuit by the
RSA. There is no reason to lock ourselves up in the proprietary ****.
Also, as I said, I follow Ned on this all the way. To IAB, if needed.
Regards, [To reply, remove "NOSPAM!" from the
Uri "Reply-To:" field]
-=-=-==-=-=- uri(_at_)ibm(_dot_)net
<Disclaimer>