On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 17:54:23 -0700 (PDT) "Dan Harkins" <dharkins@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > If specification of patented algorithms and drafts subject to IPR > disclosure is not enough to knock a draft of the Standards Track then > I don't know why FUD about a possible patent _maybe_ existing that > _might_ apply is. I'm no longer an AD, but if I were, I'd propose a policy that the IESG automatically disregard any objection to a spec on the grounds that it uses a patented protocol. Folks, the IETF, via the IPR WG (of which I used to be co-chair) explicitly declined to adopt that standard. The policy under which it operates, *by IETF consensus*, is that the WG should decide for any given document if the (vast) disadvantages of an encumbered technology are outweighed by the abilities it grants. I see no reason whatsoever to even consider a generic objection.; that's not what our explicit policy says. I should note that I have no opinions on the merits of this draft compared with an EKE-based alternative, though I should also note that (a) I'm the coinventor of EKE, and (b) as far as I know the US patent on EKE (5,241,599) doesn't expire until October 1, 2011. --Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf