Re: [TLS] TLS WG Chair Comments on draft-ietf-tls-authz-07

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Alfred,
neither of the cited KeyNote drafts (nor the KeyNote system itself) is patent-encumbered. However, I admit to not (yet) having paid close attention to the details of the IPR issues around tls-authz-extns itself and their potential impact to tls-authz-keynote.

I have started draft-keromytis-keynote-x509-01 through the RFC- fication process (currently discussing with a reviewer), since it does not depend on authz (or any other pending work in any WG). I have been waiting for tls-authz-extns to go through the process before I start with draft-keromytis-tls-authz-keynote-01. I invite every interested party to send me comments. You may find it useful to first read RFCs 2704 (at least the first few sections) and 2792.
Best,
-Angelos


On Feb 11, 2009, at 7:02 PM, Alfred HÎnes wrote:

At Wed, 11 Feb 2009 16:20:14 -0500 (EST), Dean Anderson  wrote:

                                                     ...  And as
programmer and developer, I will probably have some non-patented
alternatives to present.

             --Dean

Dean,
that's really laudable progress, leading back to technical discussion
of possible alternative solutions.
Please indeed prepare such I-D as soon as feasible.


I heartly invite other interested parties as well to submit their
proposals to the TLS WG, and I hereby explicitely would like to
address those many folks that newly started being interested in
IETF work in general and further development and application of
TLS in particular.

In order to make life easier for all participants,
I suggest to start with streamlined draft names like
draft-<author>-tlz-authz-<xxx>-00 .

The WG should be able to perform an unprejudized discussion
of alternative proposals before it comes to determine consensus
whether there is enough interest and support to warrant adopting
'TLS Authorization' as a new work item, and if so, which
draft(s) to base the WG project on.

I personally promise to review sound draft proposals in time
before such WG decision (perhaps not initial -00 versions,
only enough elaborate refined versions).


One immediate question to the group and the respective author:

Draft-housley-tls-authz-extns only defines a framework, and
according to the past exegesis of the imprecise IPR statements
under discussion, only the application of that framework to
specific use cases might be encumbered by these claims.
However, the recent I-D, draft-keromytis-tls-authz-keynote-01,
together with a supporting sibling document,
draft-keromytis-keynote-x509-01 (both still rough and lacking
important details), defines a concrete instantiation of that
framework.
In how far is that instantiation encumbered by these IPR claims?
Is it burdened with other patent claims?


Kind regards,
 Alfred HÎnes.

--

+------------------------ +--------------------------------------------+ | TR-Sys Alfred Hoenes | Alfred Hoenes Dipl.-Math., Dipl.- Phys. | | Gerlinger Strasse 12 | Phone: (+49)7156/9635-0, Fax: -18 | | D-71254 Ditzingen | E-Mail: ah@TR- Sys.de | +------------------------ +--------------------------------------------+



_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]