Dean and the IESG:
I will respond to some, but not all of Dean's points.
3. --There have been reports of similar issues in recent lawsuit where
the plaintiff patent-holder acted similarly to Housley/Brown/Polk et al
and was found to have engaged in "aggravated litigation abuse". In that
case, the Judge ruled the patents unenforceable as a penalty for the
deception of the standards body in that case. (see
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipr-wg/current/msg05089.html and
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/07-1545.pdf)
This case, and at least two others like it, argue the opposite
point. Patent claims were placed in the public domain after the
court ruled that the patent-holder had not followed the appropriate
procedures during development of the standard. In all of the cases
that I am aware of, the standards documents were published prior to
the courts getting involved.
4. --There is no community consensus to proceed, nor any demand from the
community to have this protocol standardized.
Several people have asked that this document proceed, including some
researchers at Columbia University that want to make use of the protocol.
5. --There is only one implementation: Brown&Housley's
First, I do not have an implementation. Second, I know that at least
one other exists. It was developed for GnuTLS, but it is not being
distributed at the moment. It will be interesting to see if the
revised IPR statement is sufficient change this situation.
Russ
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf