Tim,
On 2009-02-10 18:32, Tim Bray wrote:
On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 5:50 PM, Brian E Carpenter <
brian(_dot_)e(_dot_)carpenter(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
FWIW (and it would be good if other actual
IETF participants care to indicate +1 if they agree):
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)..."
I'm wondering why you reproduced this paragraph and omitted the following
six. This is not a rhetorical question. -Tim
Because they don't apply to the document we are being asked about.
We aren't being asked about a document defining use cases.
Whenever you implement *anything* involving *any* standard,
some of the use cases might infringe any number of patents.
That's a problem between the implementor and the patent
holders, and doesn't concern the standards body.
Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf