Tim,
On 2009-02-10 18:32, Tim Bray wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 5:50 PM, Brian E Carpenter <
> brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> FWIW (and it would be good if other actual
>> IETF participants care to indicate +1 if they agree):
>>
>> 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)..."
>
>
> I'm wondering why you reproduced this paragraph and omitted the following
> six. This is not a rhetorical question. -Tim
Because they don't apply to the document we are being asked about.
We aren't being asked about a document defining use cases.
Whenever you implement *anything* involving *any* standard,
some of the use cases might infringe any number of patents.
That's a problem between the implementor and the patent
holders, and doesn't concern the standards body.
Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf