Re: [Emu] EAP-AKA' and Re: WG adoption call for draft-arkko-eap-aka-pfs

[Alan DeKok <[e-mail]>]

On Apr 3, 2019, at 1:37 AM, Joseph Salowey <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Thanks for reviving this thread.  I agree this is important work, but we need to have consensus to bring the item into the working group.  I think the IPR issue is the main sticking point. 
> 
> I'll note that RFC 5448 has a similar IPR declaration and both documents are targeted as informational.   Some possible ways forward:
> 
> 1. Come up with an alternative proposal.  Since no one has already stepped forward I don't think this is realistic. 
> 2. Accept the document into the working group.
> 3. Reject the document, which will force the work to go through the independent submission process, which will probably result in less broad and thorough review.  
> 4. Amendment to the license terms of the IPR - I have received no indication that this will happen
> 
> The document will likely get published in either case 2 or 3 above.  I'd like to work through this discussion over the next few weeks so please voice your views on this thread.  

  Despite my misgivings, I think (2) is necessary here.

  It would be helpful for the IETF as a whole to acknowledge the importance of Open Source in the IETF process.  And, that "RAND" licensing isn't necessarily RAND when fees are involved.

  e.g. "Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory License to All Implementers with Possible Royalty/Fee" 

  OK, *what* is that fee?  A million dollars for a 5G operator / vendor?  How much should an Open Source implementation pay?

  Alan DeKok.