Dear Brian; On Feb 9, 2009, at 8:50 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
FWIW (and it would be good if other actual> IETF participants care to indicate +1 if they agree):>
FWIW I read the IPR statement and couldn't figure out what the recent posterswere talking about either. Hunting around, I come across this <http://www.heise-online.co.uk/news/FSF-call-for-opposition-to-TLS-Authorisation-standard--/112596 > which lead to this http://www.fsf.org/news/reoppose-tls-authz-standard news → Send comments opposing TLS-authz standard by February 11<snip> That patent in question is claimed by RedPhone Security. RedPhone has given a license to anyone who implements the protocol, but they still threaten to sue anyone that uses it. <snip> ------ I don't see any sensible way you get from the statement below to the statement above. RegardsMarshall
The actual words in RedPhone's current disclosure:>> "RedPhone Security hereby asserts that the techniques for> sending and receiving authorizations defined in TLS Authorizations> Extensions (version draft-housley-tls-authz-extns-07.txt) do not> infringe upon RedPhone Security's intellectual property rights > (IPR)...">> Now, there's been some discussion of whether some use cases for> the protocol will nevertheless lead implementors to infringe, but> that (plus the question of whether the offered license conditions> in that case are in fact acceptable) is frankly irrelevant. The> draft on the table is in itself unencumbered by RedPhone Security,> and that's all that matters as far as the IETF's IPR rules go.>> There may be other reasons not to advance this document; not being> a security person, I have no opinion about that. But as far as this> particular IPR issue is concerned, IMHO it's good to go.>> Brian> _______________________________________________> Ietf mailing list> Ietf@xxxxxxxx> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________Ietf mailing listIetf@xxxxxxxxxxxxx://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf