The IESG <iesg-secretary(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org> writes:
Since the third Last Call, RedPhone Security filed IETF IPR disclosure
1026. This disclosure statement asserts in part that "the techniques
for sending and receiving authorizations defined in TLS Authorizations
Extensions (version draft-housley-tls-authz-extns-07.txt) do not
infringe upon RedPhone Security's intellectual property rights". The
full text of IPR disclosure 1026 is available at:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1026/
This Last Call is intended to determine whether the IETF community
had consensus to publish draft-housley-tls-authz-extns as a
proposed standard given IPR Disclosure 1026.
Given the patent disclaimer from RedPhone, I'm against publishing this
as a proposed standard.
It seems no license is demanded to implement the technology, which is a
step in the right direction.
It also seems clear that RedPhone will demand a license for _use_ of the
technology. Practical use-cases appears to be covered by this demand.
That makes the technology unsuitable as a proposed standard to me.
I am also concerned that the earlier patent disclaimer #765 is not
available:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/765/
This makes it impossible for the community to review the history around
the licensing conditions. This seems contrary to the requirements of
RFC 3979 aka BCP 0079:
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
Thus it seems the policies around patent disclosures have not been
followed by the IETF itself here.
/Simon
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf