The ipr topic is a bit offtopic, but I can't resist.. On Thu, 21 Oct 2004, Paul Hoffman / VPNC wrote: > Which is still true, I hope. I don't believe in either case that the > WG was making a decision on what technology to standardize on based > on the patent issues. In the case of the Certicom claim to all > Diffie-Hellman MODP groups, the WG has not changed its standard. On > the NAT-T claims, the WG went ahead. Hmm. Maybe what the IETF could also find useful is an informal repository where people who believe they've found prior art [or possibly some other information] can insert short text and pointers to such work. (Obviously with disclaimers.) This might help in helping the IETF participants more easily evaluate the tradeoffs of the technology. Today we see just the ipr disclosure form; that gives a rather sad view of the situation. -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf