Re: [TLS] TLS renegotiation issue

[Nicolas Williams <Nicolas.Williams at sun.com>]

On Sat, Nov 07, 2009 at 08:59:32AM -0800, Michael D'Errico wrote:
> >Therefore, I think a protocol change is less invasive (assuming that
> >it is essentially free-for-all-uses IPR-wise).
> 
> Is there any issue with IPR?

The proposal is to, effectively, do channel binding.  Channel binding
goes back a long time, to the early 90s at least (see RFC1508, for an
example from 1993).  I know of no patents covering the technique.  Not
that I would -- I don't go looking for patents.  But so you know,
there's plenty prior art, going back a fair number of years.

Nico
--