Hi Steve, On Tue, July 21, 2009 6:16 pm, Steven M. Bellovin wrote: > 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. I completely agree. I am on the record stating that the TLS Extractors draft should be advanced on the Standards Track. All I'm saying is that the policy applied to it (and others) should apply to mine. > 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. And in this case there is not even a statement that this draft uses encumbered technology, only the lack of a statement that it does not (and given that it's really hard to prove a negative, that is an unreasonable bar to set, in my opinion). I really hope this IPR nonsense as it relates to EAP-pwd can be dispatched. regards, Dan. _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf