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

[Simon Josefsson <simon at josefsson.org>]

Matthew Campagna <mcampagna at certicom.com> writes:

> Section V of the form, "Disclosure of Patent Information (i.e.,
> patents or patent applications required to be disclosed by Section 6
> of RFC 3979)," has been updated.  Subsection C highlights the specific
> RFCs and I-Ds that are believed to be covered by the patents and
> patent applications listed in Schedule A of the linked IPR
> contribution
> (http://www.certicom.com/images/pdfs/certicom%20-ipr-contribution-to-ietfsept08.pdf).
> Please note that no version of the draft_ietf_tls_extractor appears in
> this section.

Thank you, I hope this resolves my concern.

>    We consider the PDF document the formal IPR statement and invite
>    IETF to host it internally if they believe that inclusion by
>    external link changes the significance of the patent disclosure and
>    licensing declaration.

I believe the IETF should host it, if the IETF considers it to be the
BCP 79 disclosure.  Otherwise it has no persistent archive of received
disclosures.  But this is not something you should be responsible for
making happen.

> I believe the confusion arises from interpreting Section IV "IETF
> Document or Other Contribution to Which the IPR Disclosure Relates."
> A possible suggestion to remove future ambiguity might be to codify
> the form more in RFC 3979, i.e. what is to be included in Section IV
> and what is meant by "relates."

I strongly agree here.  BCP 79 requires the disclosure to contain a list
of patents and a list of documents affected by those patents.  The web
page should use consistent terminology to avoid generating future
similar problems.

Thanks,
Simon