The main issue I have been struggeling with these authorization extensions
inside TLS is that they happen at the wrong layer.
Today, we see similar functionality being deployed at higher layers. I doubt
that a standardized authorization mechanism inside TLS will have a lot of
impact.
Ciao
Hannes
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On
Behalf Of Angelos D. Keromytis
Sent: 12 February, 2009 11:21
To: Alfred HÎnes
Cc: dean(_at_)av8(_dot_)com; tls(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: [TLS] TLS WG Chair Comments on draft-ietf-tls-authz-07
Alfred,
neither of the cited KeyNote drafts (nor the KeyNote system
itself) is patent-encumbered. However, I admit to not (yet)
having paid close attention to the details of the IPR issues
around tls-authz-extns itself and their potential impact to
tls-authz-keynote.
I have started draft-keromytis-keynote-x509-01 through the
RFC- fication process (currently discussing with a reviewer),
since it does not depend on authz (or any other pending work
in any WG). I have been waiting for tls-authz-extns to go
through the process before I start with
draft-keromytis-tls-authz-keynote-01. I invite every
interested party to send me comments. You may find it useful
to first read RFCs
2704 (at least the first few sections) and 2792.
Best,
-Angelos
On Feb 11, 2009, at 7:02 PM, Alfred HÎnes wrote:
At Wed, 11 Feb 2009 16:20:14 -0500 (EST), Dean Anderson wrote:
... And as
programmer and developer, I will probably have some non-patented
alternatives to present.
--Dean
Dean,
that's really laudable progress, leading back to technical
discussion
of possible alternative solutions.
Please indeed prepare such I-D as soon as feasible.
I heartly invite other interested parties as well to submit their
proposals to the TLS WG, and I hereby explicitely would like to
address those many folks that newly started being interested in IETF
work in general and further development and application of TLS in
particular.
In order to make life easier for all participants, I suggest
to start
with streamlined draft names like draft-<author>-tlz-authz-<xxx>-00 .
The WG should be able to perform an unprejudized discussion of
alternative proposals before it comes to determine consensus whether
there is enough interest and support to warrant adopting 'TLS
Authorization' as a new work item, and if so, which
draft(s) to base the WG project on.
I personally promise to review sound draft proposals in time before
such WG decision (perhaps not initial -00 versions, only enough
elaborate refined versions).
One immediate question to the group and the respective author:
Draft-housley-tls-authz-extns only defines a framework, and
according
to the past exegesis of the imprecise IPR statements under
discussion,
only the application of that framework to specific use cases
might be
encumbered by these claims.
However, the recent I-D, draft-keromytis-tls-authz-keynote-01,
together with a supporting sibling document,
draft-keromytis-keynote-x509-01 (both still rough and lacking
important details), defines a concrete instantiation of that
framework.
In how far is that instantiation encumbered by these IPR claims?
Is it burdened with other patent claims?
Kind regards,
Alfred HÎnes.
--
+------------------------
+--------------------------------------------+
| TR-Sys Alfred Hoenes | Alfred Hoenes Dipl.-Math., Dipl.-
Phys. |
| Gerlinger Strasse 12 | Phone: (+49)7156/9635-0, Fax:
-18 |
| D-71254 Ditzingen | E-Mail: ah(_at_)TR-
Sys.de |
+------------------------
+--------------------------------------------+
_______________________________________________
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