Subject: RE: IKEv2 and NAT/T

From: Gregory Lebovitz <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 11:02:03 -0700

per an informal bof at ietf57

-there have not been IPR statements officially presented to IETF wrt NAT-T
-WG chairs queried several times over the last 2+ years the person(s) who
made original comments, and have not heard back from said persons

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Markus Friedl [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Saturday, June 07, 2003 1:28 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: IKEv2 and NAT/T
> 
> 
> On Tue, Jun 03, 2003 at 11:14:14AM -0400, 
> [email-masked] wrote:
> > Just to let people know, I posted a revised IKEv2 draft 
> incorporating
> > the recent comments.
> 
> Hello,
> 
> since IKEv2 includes support for NAT/T, I'd like to know how
> IKEv2 is affected by the IPR/patent claims that exist for several
> NAT traversal methods.  Does anyone have pointers about the nature
> of these IPR claims and what exactily is affected by these claims.
> Encapsulating ESP in UDP seems very trivial, so I doubt that
> this is all the patents are about.
> 
> Any help appreciated.
> thanks, -markus
>

---

From: Tero Kivinen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 22:36:40 +0300

> -there have not been IPR statements officially presented to IETF wrt NAT-T

Actually not true. There is two IPR statement related to the NAT-T in
the IKEv2 already in the IPR page:

http://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/SSH-NAT

and

http://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/MICROSOFT-NAT-Traversal.txt

The first one considers all "implementations of an IETF
standards-track specification of an IPSec NAT traversal module"
identical, i.e the text covers both IKEv1 and IKEv2.

The second one only allows using the NAT-T if it is implemented based
on the <draft-ietf-ipsec-nat-t-ike-03.txt> and
<draft-ietf-ipsec-udp-encaps-03.txt> drafts, i.e it propably will not
cover IKEv2.

There is also one more Microsoft IPR claim on the page to the ikev2,
but I do not know any details. 

> made original comments, and have not heard back from said persons

This is about the one patent claim couple of years ago. They never
sent any official IPR statements, so nobody knows if they actually
have anything.
-- 
[email-masked]
SSH Communications Security                  http://www.ssh.fi/
SSH IPSEC Toolkit                            http://www.ssh.fi/ipsec/

---

From: Daniel de Young <[email-masked]>
Date: 16 Jul 2003 15:34:18 -0700

> made original comments, and have not heard back from said persons

Are people who make these claims required to clarify their statements
before a draft is finalized?  I certainly hope so...

-Daniel

---

From: Bill Sommerfeld <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 05:21:27 -0400

> before a draft is finalized?  I certainly hope so...

Delaying RFC publication until the formal IPR claim appears on
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.html would allow anyone with an
unsubstantiated IPR claim to prevent the publication of RFC's they
allege might infringe their IPR..

							- Bill

---

From: Markus Friedl <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 09:44:50 +0200

> before a draft is finalized?  I certainly hope so...

It's still very confusing.  The statements fail to specify what
part of the drafts if covered by the IPR claims.  Just prepending
an UDP header to ESP is rather trivial.  And so on.

-markus