Hello, I've just read the claim of of RedPhone Security as laid out here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/833/ There, they say that they will grant general, royalty-free licenses to their part, but they also say that they'll "retain" rights for certain classes of authorization and access control. This, effectively, means that they will not grant a license to the whole of the functionality where they laid a patent claim on, but only on parts of it. So, the interoperability issue, depicted in my earlier email, is still valid. As to the side node, I'm very much aware of the fact that such a policy can't be enforced without supporting legislation in jurisdictions around the world. So that leaves us with the position to generally reject patented material. But at least something should be done (if it's not done already) to avoid someone sneaking patented stuff into standards, and someone (someone else? daughter company? investor who purchases the remains?) tries to rip everyone off and thus break the standard, as in the JPEG case. Kind Regards, Toni Mueller. -------- AS29394 TM28-RIPE Oeko.neT Mueller & Brandt GbR sales: info@xxxxxxxx v: +49 2261 979364 f: +49 2261 979366 http://www.oeko.net consulting, systems administration, software development, Python, Perl, networking, Unix, Debian Linux, OpenBSD, Internet services, trainings GPG: 1024D/68BDA342; FP=3312 D609 AD2E 8C05 D494 139E 8419 E0DB 68BD A342 A. Because it breaks the logical sequence of discussion. Q. Why is top posting bad? $ echo "creationism" | tr -d "holy godly goal" _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf