RE: FSF's comment on draft-housley-tls-authz-extns

"Powers Chuck-RXCP20" <Chuck.Powers@motorola.com> Fri, 13 February 2009 16:39 UTC

Return-Path: <Chuck.Powers@motorola.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D3F73A6C42 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Feb 2009 08:39:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_32=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MHWPw+let5nr for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Feb 2009 08:39:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail153.messagelabs.com (mail153.messagelabs.com [216.82.253.51]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id D61933A6BCB for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Feb 2009 08:39:51 -0800 (PST)
X-VirusChecked: Checked
X-Env-Sender: Chuck.Powers@motorola.com
X-Msg-Ref: server-7.tower-153.messagelabs.com!1234543197!9071547!1
X-StarScan-Version: 6.0.0; banners=-,-,-
X-Originating-IP: [129.188.136.8]
Received: (qmail 12587 invoked from network); 13 Feb 2009 16:39:57 -0000
Received: from motgate8.mot.com (HELO motgate8.mot.com) (129.188.136.8) by server-7.tower-153.messagelabs.com with SMTP; 13 Feb 2009 16:39:57 -0000
Received: from il06exr01.mot.com (il06exr01.mot.com [129.188.137.131]) by motgate8.mot.com (8.12.11/Motorola) with ESMTP id n1DGdvoL027986 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Feb 2009 09:39:57 -0700 (MST)
Received: from il06vts02.mot.com (il06vts02.mot.com [129.188.137.142]) by il06exr01.mot.com (8.13.5/Vontu) with SMTP id n1DGdu62001786 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Feb 2009 10:39:56 -0600 (CST)
Received: from de01exm69.ds.mot.com (de01exm69.am.mot.com [10.176.8.25]) by il06exr01.mot.com (8.13.5/8.13.0) with ESMTP id n1DGdunh001780 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Feb 2009 10:39:56 -0600 (CST)
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: FSF's comment on draft-housley-tls-authz-extns
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 11:39:55 -0500
Message-ID: <2963ECA56B01F94B9964469DCB8A2B5A05610DCF@de01exm69.ds.mot.com>
In-Reply-To: <01N5FZ99K7D600007A@mauve.mrochek.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: FSF's comment on draft-housley-tls-authz-extns
thread-index: AcmN98hNKUUIBJiARZullPc5asPlPwAAePSg
References: <87skmknar8.fsf@ashbery.wjsullivan.net><tslfxiiuzs5.fsf@live.mit.edu> <01N5FZ99K7D600007A@mauve.mrochek.com>
From: Powers Chuck-RXCP20 <Chuck.Powers@motorola.com>
To: ned+ietf@mauve.mrochek.com, Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu>
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 16:39:53 -0000

+1


Regards, 
Chuck 
------------- 
Chuck Powers, 
Motorola, Inc 
phone: 512-427-7261
mobile: 512-576-0008
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-bounces@ietf.org] On 
> Behalf Of ned+ietf@mauve.mrochek.com
> Sent: Friday, February 13, 2009 10:14 AM
> To: Sam Hartman
> Cc: ietf@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: FSF's comment on draft-housley-tls-authz-extns
> 
> > ...
> 
> > I'm sorry, I don't see this at all.  I appreciate that you 
> quoted the
> > text in question.  However I don't see anything in the language you
> > quote that applies differently to either users or developers.
> 
> Well, there's something of an exemption for developers 
> producing generic
> uilding block software. But I take your point to be that a 
> developer who, say,
> puts in specialized support for a Redphone critical extension 
> (item one of the
> four), would clearly be infringing.
> 
> > The text is saying that the transport mechanisms described in the
> > Housley draft are not covered by the patent.  However the 
> text goes on
> > to say that some ways in which an implementation might employ those
> > transport mechanisms would be covered by the patent.  As I read the
> > text, both developers and users who used the mechanisms in 
> the Housley
> > draft in any of these four ways would infringe the patent, Redphone
> > claims.
> 
> Nicely put. I agree with this assessment.
> 
> > However I'll also note that there are significant uses of the
> > transport mechanisms in the Housley draft that are 
> interesting both to
> > the free software and IETF communities that fall well outside these
> > four areas.  In particular, transporting in-band group 
> memberships and
> > authorization/attribute assertions see.ms to fall outside 
> these areas.
> 
> Exactly.
> 
> > I can understand why the GNU project would not choose to ship an
> > extension to GNU TLS that used this transport to send agreement
> > locations.
> 
> Sure, that would clearly infringe. The question to my mind is 
> whether or not
> this is an overly onerous restriction. I don't think it is 
> but others may
> disagree.
> 
> > However, it is completely absurd to claim that because some
> > infrastructure building block could (by writing additional software)
> > be used in a manner that infringes a patent that no free software
> > version of that building block can exist.  As an example, the FSF
> > ships a compiler collection that can be used to infringe a number of
> > patents in the hands of someone who has infringing source code.  The
> > GNU/Linux kernel includes a TCP implementation that can be used to
> > infringe Redphone's patent.
> 
> This is the point I was trying to make in my earlier 
> response. There are many
> use-case patents built on top of pretty much any protocol 
> building block you
> can think of. If we adopt the theory, which is implicit in many of the
> objections I've seem to this document, that we cannot work on 
> protocol building
> blocks when such use-case patents exist, we'll effectively be 
> out of business.
> 
> I will also point out that the list of IPR disclosures 
> includes very few of
> these patents. Demanding the disclosure of all such patents 
> participants are
> aware of would be ... interesting.
> 
> 				Ned
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>