Subject: Re: [TLS] Last Call: draft-ietf-tls-extractor (Keying Material Exporters for Transport Layer Security (TLS)) to Proposed Standard

From: Stephen Kent <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 20:41:45 -0400

At 10:05 AM -0400 8/5/09, Dean Anderson wrote:
>Ned and Stephen,
>
>If you mean the recent message traffic about the 'intention to remove'
>extractor from a list of patented documents, that hasn't happened so far
>and an 'intention to remove' doesn't mean it isn't patented. It is
>possible that Certicom can later say it was a misunderstanding and that
>the official documents were correct. As evidence of their view, they
>have the official documents.  As evidence of your view, you have an
>unofficial and vague email message apparently contrary to the official
>documents, and you will have to argue you based your decision on the
>unofficial and vague message rather than the official IPR Disclosures. 
>I think one cannot get to a Qualcomm v. Broadcomm finding under such
>circumstances.

I reiterate my support for the cited I-D. period.

Steve

---

From: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 17:46:59 +0200

I am aware that the last call period has ended, but maybe this comment
will aid IESG processing of the document.

After having talked to the SFLC and the FSF about the patent threat on
this document, I no longer oppose publication of the tls-extractor
document on the standards track.  It appears as if the patent threat on
the document (as I perceived it) was resolved when Certicom's agent
clarified their intentions on the mailing list.  Thanks to Pasi for
nudging me to escalate the issue, and also thanks to the SFLC for giving
me advice on the matter.

Generally, it appears sub-optimal that implementers needs to review not
only the patent disclosure page but also review mailing list archives to
be able to evaluate the patent status on a document.

Finally, I note that the time period a document is in IETF Last Call,
even if the time window is extended as it was for tls-extractor, is too
short to allow matters to be resolved that requires coordination between
multiple organizations and feedback from legal people.

Thanks,
/Simon