Subject: [TLS] IPR and draft-ietf-tls-srp

From: "Erwin Davis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 17:02:46 -0400

Hi, TLS-SRP folks,

Some folks mention IPR issues related to this draft. I wonder if we adopt
this draft, does that mean we may potentially violate the IPR granted to the
other parties. What about RFC2945 and RFC294? Thanks for your
clarification.

Regards,

e
_______________________________________________
TLS mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls

---

From: David Taylor <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2007 08:00:11 +1000

> Some folks mention IPR issues related to this draft. I wonder if we 
adopt this draft,
 > does that mean we may potentially violate the IPR granted to the 
other parties.
 > What about RFC2945 and RFC294? Thanks for your clarification.

I assume "we" means the vendor who implements the draft. Yes, a vendor 
may be violating the Pheonix and/or Lucent patents if they implement 
this draft. The fact that those two companies refuse to make a concrete 
statement that the draft does violate their patents makes it seem like 
they're relying on FUD rather than science, but it isn't me putting my 
money where my mouth is.

In any case, the IETF itself is not open to any legal issues by making 
this an RFC.

Regards,
David Taylor.

---

From: "Erwin Davis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2007 12:21:14 -0700

Hi, Taylor,

Thanks for your info. Have Lucent/Pheonix mentioned which patent(s) the
draft may conflict with? Any opinion/standview from the implementors of
tls-srp about the potential issue? Thanks,

e

Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2007 08:00:11 +1000
> From: David Taylor <[email-masked]>
> Subject: Re: [TLS] IPR and draft-ietf-tls-srp
> To: [email-masked]
> Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of TLS Digest, Vol 35, Issue 26
> ***********************************
>