Re: [TLS] Summary of IPR discussion on draft-ietf-tls-extractor-05

["Blumenthal, Uri" <uri at ll.mit.edu>]

Title: Re: [TLS] Summary of IPR discussion on draft-ietf-tls-extractor-05

Crisp, precise and to the point. Thank you!

My objections are withdrawn.


On 5/15/09  11:41 , "Matthew Campagna" <mcampagna at certicom.com> wrote:

> In hopes of clarifying,
>
> It is our intention to foster broad adoption of ECC technology.  The grant is meant to cover any necessary Certicom patents and patent applications to implement RFC 4492, RFC 5289 or the draft-rescorla-tls-suiteb when used with draft-ietf-tls-extractor.  It is not making any statement to the draft-ietf-tls-extractor when used absent of these three cipher suites.
>
> Regards,
>    Matt
>
> Matthew Campagna
> Director, Certicom Research
> Office: 203.894.9777 Main: 905.507.4220
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: tls-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:tls-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> > Joseph Salowey (jsalowey)
> > Sent: Friday, May 15, 2009 11:03 AM
> > To: TLS at ietf.org
> > Subject: [TLS] Summary of IPR discussion on draft-ietf-tls-extractor-05
> >
> > I haven't heard anyone dispute that the current statement referenced in
> > https://datatrackerietf.org/ipr/1004/ pertains to the use of the draft
> > with ECC technology.  I have heard concern that there may be IPR claims
> > that may not be disclosed by Certicom or another party.  However, this
> > is always the case and no new evidence of the existence of additional
> > claims has been brought forth.  My recommendation is to move forward
> > with publishing the draft on standards track.  Here is a what I suggest
> > should go in the PROTO write-up
> >
> >    (1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or
> >           issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director
> >           and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he
> >           or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document,
> > or
> >
> >           has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any
> >           event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated
> >           that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
> >           concerns here. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document
> >           been filed? If so, please include a reference to the
> >           disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on
> >           this issue.
> >
> > The document shepherd has no concerns with the document.  There is an
> > IPR disclosure that lists this document:
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1004/.  There has been some discussion
> > of this disclosure on the TLS list.  In general the disclosure only
> > discusses the use of the draft with ECC technology.  Some members are
> > worried that this leaves a loop hole for later assertions to be made by
> > the owner of the #1004 disclosure or that another third party may try
> > to
> > assert claims.   No new evidence about these existence of additional
> > claims has been provided to the working group so the document shepherd
> > has decided to move forward with progressing the draft on standards
> > track.
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > TLS mailing list
> > TLS at ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
> _______________________________________________
> TLS mailing list
> TLS at ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls

-- 
Regards,
Uri
<Disclaimer>