Re: [TLS] Proto write-up for TLS exporter

[Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman at vpnc.org>]

At 8:43 PM +0200 5/13/09, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman at vpnc.org> writes:
>
>> At 7:28 PM +0200 5/13/09, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>>>Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman at vpnc.org> writes:
>>>
>>>> At 1:58 PM +0200 5/13/09, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>>>>>I don't support publishing tls-extractor on the standards track as long
> >> >>as there are unclear patent threat against it and no acceptable free
>>> >>software compatible patent license is available.
>>>>
>>>> This is absurd and obstructionist. You are saying that if anyone
>>>> publishes an IPR statement about a work in progress, they can stop
>>>> that document from becoming a standard.
>>>
>>>I'm absolutely not saying that.  Please re-read what I wrote.
>>
>> You are and I did, carefully.
>>
>> You know full well that any IPR statement in the IETF can be
>> considered an "unclear patent threat" by many people. Further, you
> > know that the phrase "no acceptable free software compatible patent
> > license" is unclear to many IETF participants, much less to many
>> patent owners.
>>
>> Given your two restrictions, I believe my statement is true.
>
>Those two restrictions are something you invented, they are not in what
>I wrote

Wait, what?!? Are you saying that I lied in the text at the top of this message, and that the official archive of your message at <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/current/msg03476.html> is also lying?

>and they are not what I intended.

Well, that is certainly believable.

> Conveniently, the
>restrictions you carefully chose made your statement true.  The patent
>threat and patent license is unclear _to me_ and _right now_.  That is
>sufficient for me to not support publishing the document at this point.

That's not what you said.

Further, it is still absurd and obstructionist to say that a document cannot be published on standards track as long as someone thinks it has one or more "unclear patent threat against it". Anyone can write an IPR statement that is unclear to someone.

>WG's should discuss patent disclaimers and decide whether to live with
>the problem or not.

Sure. However, such discussions should not hinge on whether anyone finds the threat unclear. Nor should they hinge on how different people interpret acceptable free software compatible patent license".

>That discussion had not taken place for
>tls-extractor before the proto-writeup was posted.  I'm hoping the
>discussion will provide more grounds to base the decision on.

Some people would find that starting this with un-meetable demands is not conducive to a discussion.

>The IETF needs to carefully weight patent threats when considering
>standardization.

No, we don't. You have been repeatedly on the losing side of this discussion in the IPR WG. Bringing it up in every WG you follow does not change that fact.

>I believe implying that such considerations are
>obstructions hurt the credibility of the IETF as a standardization body
>for the Internet.

In whose eyes will the IETF's credibility be enhanced by re-opening this discussion every time you want it to?

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium