Hello
I am writing to add my voice to those calling on the IESG not to
approve this draft.
I am a subscriber to this list and have tried to read and thoughtfully
digest what has been said already before adding my two cents.
It seems clear that, whereas the IPR Disclosure statement asserts that
the proposed standard can be implemented without infringing on the
RedPhone patent, from my reading it would be very difficult to work
around parts 2, 3 and 4 of the disclosure statement to actually use
the TLA Auth extentions for the purpose for which they are intended.
This is very different to the scenario that others have described in
this discussion ie. where a patent may be granted for a sufficiently
particular, novel and innovative use of an IETF standard which might
not even have been foreseen when the standard was published.
I don't believe the IESG should approve the draft without seriously
examining this issue. That there is a record of previous "bad
behaviour", intentional or not, further reinforces the need for closer
scrutiny. I think (I hope) their is a general consensus that IETF
standards should be freely implementable and usable for the manner in
which they are intended.
The comments from the TLS WG chairs are also a concern. I support the
suggestion that this be re-submitted as a TLS WG work item.
Kind regards
Bob Jolliffe
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf