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

[Simon Josefsson <simon at josefsson.org>]

<Pasi.Eronen at nokia.com> writes:

> Simon Josefsson wrote:
>
>> > So, again, I ask, "Do you have some reason to believe that extractors
>> > itself is encumbered absent use of ECC?"
>> 
>> I believe the PDF is a reason, at least without more information.  My
>> reasoning is as follows:
>> 
>> The patent disclaimer filed with the IETF lists tls-extractor as one
>> document that Certicom believes is covered by their patents.
>
> The IPR disclosure form (not the PDF) filed with the IETF says the
> disclosure is "related to" a big list of IETF documents.  I think
> there's a difference between saying "the disclosure is related to X"
> and "the patents cover X", but your reading may of course be
> different (and IANAL).

I agree with you.

For reference, the page says 'IV. IETF Document or Other Contribution to
Which this IPR Disclosure Relates:'.  See
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1004/>.

Fortunately, BCP79 is clear on what should be in the disclosure:

6.4.1.  The disclosure must list the numbers of any issued patents or
   published patent applications or indicate that the claim is based on
   unpublished patent applications.  The disclosure must also list the
   specific IETF or RFC Editor Document(s) or activity affected.  If the
   IETF Document is an Internet-Draft, it must be referenced by specific
   version number.

It seems as if the IETF web page, by using "relates", is partially to
blame for this confusion.  The intention (by my reading of BCP79 at
least) is not that all documents that are related should be listed, but
only those that are "actively affected".  There is certainly a
significant difference.

I think what I'd like to see here is

1) The IETF web page uses language that is consistent with BCP 79,

2) That Certicom updates the patent disclosure.

If the new patent disclosure no longer imply that Certicom believe they
have patents on tls-extractor, my concern would be resolved.

/Simon