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

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 17:16:41 -0500

Folks, in addition to the IPR disclosure that triggered this second
last call, I've received mail from an interested party that IPR held
by a third party who as far as we know was not involved in IETF
discussions of this draft may apply to the draft.  While the
interested party was willing to bring it to my attention, they did not
want to go through the hassle of filing a third party IPR disclosure.

It's clear that in my role as shepherding AD I should not take any
position on whether the IPR covers this draft.  I asked the IESG what
I should do and people thought that I was clearly obligated to file a
third party IPR disclosure making it clear that while I as an IESG
member took no position, I wanted the community to look at the IPR and
evaluate it.

Unfortunately, the document I have is a PDF of a scanned set of
images.  I don't have a good way to read it enough to even pull out
the title of the patent application.

Would someone be willing to take on the task of taking this PDF and
filing a third party disclosure?

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

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 10:45:57 -0500

Eric Rescorla has agreed to deal with the third party disclosure on my
behalf.

thanks for all the volunteers of help.

---

From: Brad Hards <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 19:57:56 +1100

On Tuesday 27 February 2007 08:53, IESG Secretary wrote:
> The IESG is considering re-approving this draft with knowledge of the
> IPR disclosure from Redphone Security. The IESG solicits final
> comments on whether the IETF community has consensus to publish
> draft-housley-tls-authz-extns as a proposed standard given the IPR
> claimed.
I believe that approval of draft-houselye-tls-authz-extns would be the wrong 
decision, for the following reasons:
1. It would send the wrong message to other companies to both Redphone 
Security and other companies who would seek to engage in similar practice. 
This is not to suggest that any particular company did or would seek to do 
so, just that the IETF should seek to deter this behaviour.
2. The authorisation extensions have recently been implemented by a free 
software library, and problems were found in a couple of area. 
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/current/msg01518.html

Approval of draft-housley-tls-authz-extns given current knowledge would be a 
poor decision both politically and technically.

Brad

---

From: Brad Hards <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 19:57:56 +1100

Brad