Re: FWIW: draft-housley-tls-authz-extns-07.txt to Proposed Standard

Dear Brian;

On Feb 9, 2009, at 8:50 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

> FWIW (and it would be good if other actual
> IETF participants care to indicate +1 if they agree):
>

FWIW I read the IPR statement and couldn't figure out what the recent  
posters
were talking about either.

Hunting around, I come across this

<http://www.heise-online.co.uk/news/FSF-call-for-opposition-to-TLS-Authorisation-standard--/112596 
 >

which lead to this

http://www.fsf.org/news/reoppose-tls-authz-standard

news → Send comments opposing TLS-authz standard by February 11
<snip>

That patent in question is claimed by RedPhone Security.  RedPhone has  
given a license to anyone who implements the protocol, but they still  
threaten to sue anyone that uses it.

<snip>

------

I don't see any sensible way you get from the statement below to the  
statement above.

Regards
Marshall

> 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)..."
>
> Now, there's been some discussion of whether some use cases for
> the protocol will nevertheless lead implementors to infringe, but
> that (plus the question of whether the offered license conditions
> in that case are in fact acceptable) is frankly irrelevant. The
> draft on the table is in itself unencumbered by RedPhone Security,
> and that's all that matters as far as the IETF's IPR rules go.
>
> There may be other reasons not to advance this document; not being
> a security person, I have no opinion about that. But as far as this
> particular IPR issue is concerned, IMHO it's good to go.
>
>    Brian
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf