Dear Brian;
On Feb 9, 2009, at 8:50 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
FWIW (and it would be good if other actual
IETF participants care to indicate +1 if they agree):
FWIW I read the IPR statement and couldn't figure out what the recent
posters
were talking about either.
Hunting around, I come across this
<http://www.heise-online.co.uk/news/FSF-call-for-opposition-to-TLS-Authorisation-standard--/112596
>
which lead to this
http://www.fsf.org/news/reoppose-tls-authz-standard
news → Send comments opposing TLS-authz standard by February 11
<snip>
That patent in question is claimed by RedPhone Security. RedPhone has
given a license to anyone who implements the protocol, but they still
threaten to sue anyone that uses it.
<snip>
------
I don't see any sensible way you get from the statement below to the
statement above.
Regards
Marshall
The actual words in RedPhone's current disclosure:
"RedPhone Security hereby asserts 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
(IPR)..."
Now, there's been some discussion of whether some use cases for
the protocol will nevertheless lead implementors to infringe, but
that (plus the question of whether the offered license conditions
in that case are in fact acceptable) is frankly irrelevant. The
draft on the table is in itself unencumbered by RedPhone Security,
and that's all that matters as far as the IETF's IPR rules go.
There may be other reasons not to advance this document; not being
a security person, I have no opinion about that. But as far as this
particular IPR issue is concerned, IMHO it's good to go.
Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf