ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: Consensus Call for draft-housley-tls-authz

2009-03-10 15:31:16
Lawrence Rosen wrote:
If we use different terminology to identify this IETF RFC, how does that
change anything?

Paul Hoffman replied: 
Because you earlier complained about IETF standards having known patent
issues. Now we are talking about experimental protocols that are not
standards.

And I am saying that it doesn't make a bit of difference legally. If you
infringe for experimental reasons, that is still infringement.

I don't think we should publish under the IETF imprimatur if there are
*unresolved* known patent issues about which ignorant and cautious people
continue to speculate blindly. Why should any of us waste time and money on
IETF and commercial and FOSS "experiments" if they may cost us too much
money downstream? 

Its authors are free to publish draft-housley-tls-authz already. Google is
free to index that document already. Why do you insist upon granting it an
IETF RFC status without first deciding if the disclosed patent claims are
likely bogus?

/Larry


-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Hoffman [mailto:paul(_dot_)hoffman(_at_)vpnc(_dot_)org]
Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2009 10:31 AM
To: lrosen(_at_)rosenlaw(_dot_)com; ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: RE: Consensus Call for draft-housley-tls-authz

At 10:22 AM -0700 3/10/09, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
If we use different terminology to identify this IETF RFC, how does that
change anything?

Because you earlier complained about IETF standards having known patent
issues. Now we are talking about experimental protocols that are not
standards.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf