Subject: Re: Withdrawal of Approval and Second Last Call: draft-housley-tls-authz-extns

From: Todd Glassey <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2007 16:07:50 -0700 (GMT-07:00)

Russ - 

-----Original Message-----
>From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
>Sent: Apr 9, 2007 2:40 PM
>To: todd glassey <[email-masked]>, Dean Anderson <[email-masked]>
>Cc: Mark Brown <[email-masked]>, [email-masked], [email-masked]
>Subject: Re: Withdrawal of Approval and Second Last Call:   draft-housley-tls-authz-extns
>
>Todd:
>
>>Yes your initial reply got stuck in Earthlink's mail - but what I 
>>was saying is that its not that you personally needed detail to file 
>>the notice of impending IPR issues with the IETF, and that was my 
>>point.  It seems that just knowing that there was a provisional 
>>filed should be enough.
>
>One needs to know more detail than that.  

Depends on the Goal of the disclosure...  if the Goal of the disclosure process is to inform the IETF that there are suspected IPR issues then that should only need a statement from the person who believes that there are IPR issues pending. The people who submitted the IP should then be responsible to the IETF to either confirm or deny that IPR-disclosure's claim.

> It was not clear to me that 
>the claims would have been relevant to the document at hand. 

So then it would be the Filer's responsibility to either confirm or deny that there were IPR issues pending on their submission. THERE is no other reasobnable way to manage this IMHO. 

> If I 
>had that knowledge, then a 3rd party disclosure would have been appropriate.

No, I disagree there too - that you knew that a Patent had been filed is enough to force the notification of the IETF I think. It becomes the person's responsibility who filed the IP with the IETF for vetting to either file a response to the IETF's IPR Query or to have their work-product stopped and frozen until the IPR issues are resolved.

T. 
>Russ  

_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

---

From: Dean Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 22:57:02 -0400 (EDT)

[email-masked] removed per Sam Hartman's request.

On Mon, 9 Apr 2007, Russ Housley wrote:

> Dean:
> 
> I always recuse myself from IESG evaluation of a document for which I 
> am an author.  You will find this to be the normal practice for all 
> IESG members.

If you follow the 'normal' practice, then I think maybe you haven't
recused yourself, but perhaps have merely abstained from voting.  I note
that participation in the IESG discussion is not recusal. Advocacy is
not recusal.  I note also that you did not object to Carpenter's
continued advocacy after claiming to have recused himself during one
Appeal I raised with the IESG, so I rather wonder if you have perhaps
engaged in the same behavior.  Recusal means to not participate in the
decision. If you participate in IESG discussions on the subject, or even
discuss it with other members during a telechat, or in person, or on the
phone, you are involved in the IESG decision and haven't recused.
Perhaps, given that understanding, you may want to reconsider your
answer about recusal.

I am rather concerned about the lack of transparency by the IESG
regarding the IESG email archive, and the denial of the lawful rights of
members to view the archive.  I wonder at what is being hidden, and why
the IESG persists in denial after I cited the law that gives members the
right to view such things.

> I have no financial interest in PedPhone Security or the patent
> filing.  I provided consulting services to RedPhone Security; it was a
> simple work for hire.

What was the work for hire?  The TLS protocol extension was already
designed and specified in the patent application on the TLS protocol
extension.  All that remains to be done after September 2005 is to
recast the patent application in IETF format and get the wheels of
standarization going.  I find it a little disturbing that your role
seems to have been hired to get an IETF standard and your only unique
talent utilized on this limited project seems to be your IESG
membership.

I am still wondering when you started work on the draft. I also do
contracting, and I always know when my contracts start, what the
deliverables are and how much time I put into them.

		--Dean

> I have no investors in my very small consulting company: Vigil 
> Security, LLC.  I am the owner, and I am the only full-time employee.
> 
> Russ
> 
> 
> ItAt 07:47 PM 4/7/2007, Dean Anderson wrote:
> >On Fri, 6 Apr 2007, Russ Housley wrote:
> >
> > > Dean:
> > >
> > > >I'm still not clear on a few things:
> > > >
> > > >-- When did Russ Housley learn of the Patent Filing?
> > >
> > > I was aware that Mark Brown was working on a patent; however, I did
> > > not begin working with him until after his provisional patent
> > > application was filed.  I did not see the claims until the filing
> > > became public.
> > >
> > > Since I knew that a patent was in the works, but I did not know the
> > > details, at the time we submitted the -00  draft to the repository
> > > (which was February 2006), I reminded Mark Brown that an IPR
> > > statement might be necessary.
> >
> >How long did it take to produce the draft? Presumably, you must have
> >started working on the project earlier than the date of submission.
> >Did you know of the patent application before submission?
> >
> >
> >I note that you recused yourself from the decisions made on this draft.
> >That is commendable. It also implies that you stand to benefit somehow
> >from the draft. But the patent (assuming it is granted) gives Brown and
> >Wilke a monopoly on the technology.  How is it, in general terms, that
> >you will benefit from this draft?  Do you have, perhaps, a favorable
> >license agreement with Brown?  Perhaps stock in Brown's company?  Did
> >Brown agree to invest in your company?  Is there another patent
> >application? As it stands, the information we have, indicates that only
> >Brown stands to benefit, and this doesn't explain your involvement in
> >these drafts. Some clarity on how you stand to benefit would be helpful.
> >
> >
> >--
> >Av8 Internet   Prepared to pay a premium for better service?
> >www.av8.net         faster, more reliable, better service
> >617 344 9000
> 
> 
> 

-- 
Av8 Internet   Prepared to pay a premium for better service?
www.av8.net         faster, more reliable, better service
617 344 9000