Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-igoe-secsh-x509v3-06.txt> (X.509v3 Certificates for Secure Shell Authentication) to Proposed Standard

From: RJ Atkinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 09:31:51 -0500

Earlier, Paul Hoffman wrote in reply to Rene Struik:
> The changes you propose have serious IPR considerations 
> that are not present in the current document. If you want 
> to propose IPR-laden optimizations, it is better to do so 
> as a separate document so implementers can see the differences 
> easily.

+1

Also, it is important to keep any proposed changes separate 
so that the IETF can clearly understand the IPR implications 
of those proposed changes (e.g., those proposed by Rene Struik).  

IMHO, the IETF should avoid IPR issues where that is possible
and practical. 

Yours,

Ran