Dean and the IESG: I will respond to some, but not all of Dean's points.
3. --There have been reports of similar issues in recent lawsuit where the plaintiff patent-holder acted similarly to Housley/Brown/Polk et al and was found to have engaged in "aggravated litigation abuse". In that case, the Judge ruled the patents unenforceable as a penalty for the deception of the standards body in that case. (see http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipr-wg/current/msg05089.html and http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/07-1545.pdf)
This case, and at least two others like it, argue the opposite point. Patent claims were placed in the public domain after the court ruled that the patent-holder had not followed the appropriate procedures during development of the standard. In all of the cases that I am aware of, the standards documents were published prior to the courts getting involved.
4. --There is no community consensus to proceed, nor any demand from the community to have this protocol standardized.
Several people have asked that this document proceed, including some researchers at Columbia University that want to make use of the protocol.
5. --There is only one implementation: Brown&Housley's
First, I do not have an implementation. Second, I know that at least one other exists. It was developed for GnuTLS, but it is not being distributed at the moment. It will be interesting to see if the revised IPR statement is sufficient change this situation.
Russ
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf