Hi Steve,
On Tue, July 21, 2009 6:16 pm, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 17:54:23 -0700 (PDT)
"Dan Harkins" <dharkins(_at_)lounge(_dot_)org> wrote:
If specification of patented algorithms and drafts subject to IPR
disclosure is not enough to knock a draft of the Standards Track then
I don't know why FUD about a possible patent _maybe_ existing that
_might_ apply is.
I'm no longer an AD, but if I were, I'd propose a policy that the IESG
automatically disregard any objection to a spec on the grounds that it
uses a patented protocol.
I completely agree. I am on the record stating that the TLS Extractors
draft should be advanced on the Standards Track. All I'm saying is that
the policy applied to it (and others) should apply to mine.
Folks, the IETF, via the IPR WG (of which I used to be co-chair)
explicitly declined to adopt that standard. The policy under which it
operates, *by IETF consensus*, is that the WG should decide for any
given document if the (vast) disadvantages of an encumbered technology
are outweighed by the abilities it grants. I see no reason whatsoever
to even consider a generic objection.; that's not what our explicit
policy says.
And in this case there is not even a statement that this draft uses
encumbered technology, only the lack of a statement that it does not
(and given that it's really hard to prove a negative, that is an
unreasonable bar to set, in my opinion).
I really hope this IPR nonsense as it relates to EAP-pwd can be
dispatched.
regards,
Dan.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf