Hello I am writing to add my voice to those calling on the IESG not to approve this draft. I am a subscriber to this list and have tried to read and thoughtfully digest what has been said already before adding my two cents. It seems clear that, whereas the IPR Disclosure statement asserts that the proposed standard can be implemented without infringing on the RedPhone patent, from my reading it would be very difficult to work around parts 2, 3 and 4 of the disclosure statement to actually use the TLA Auth extentions for the purpose for which they are intended. This is very different to the scenario that others have described in this discussion ie. where a patent may be granted for a sufficiently particular, novel and innovative use of an IETF standard which might not even have been foreseen when the standard was published. I don't believe the IESG should approve the draft without seriously examining this issue. That there is a record of previous "bad behaviour", intentional or not, further reinforces the need for closer scrutiny. I think (I hope) their is a general consensus that IETF standards should be freely implementable and usable for the manner in which they are intended. The comments from the TLS WG chairs are also a concern. I support the suggestion that this be re-submitted as a TLS WG work item. Kind regards Bob Jolliffe _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf