If you are proposing to preclude discussion or progression of this
draft until an acceptable IPR statement has been provided to the IETF,
I support the proposal.
The PKIX WG was fully prepared to strike all mention of CRL
Distribution Points from the profile after an ugly IPR issue surfaced.
As a result of the Working Group's position a satisfactory IPR
statement was produced, in record time.
The cellular telephone industry in particular does not automatically
disqualify a technology simply because it is encumbered, even if
royalties are involved. But it demands that the terms be spelled out
up front, so that the participants can make meaningful decisions on
whether to standardize or ignore a technology.
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 09:17:47 -0800
To: ietf-smime(_at_)imc(_dot_)org
From: Paul Hoffman / IMC <phoffman(_at_)imc(_dot_)org>
Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-smime-ecc-00.txt
I am very uncomfortable discussing this draft in the WG. Certicom has just
posted their intellectual property statement at
<http://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/CERTICOM-SMIME>, and it is completely vague
and useless. It doesn't even say which of our protocols they think they
have patents in.
Why are we helping a company like this make threats against the S/MIME market?
--Paul Hoffman, Director
--Internet Mail Consortium