FWIW: draft-housley-tls-authz-extns-07.txt to Proposed Standard

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Tue, 10 February 2009 01:51 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.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 3C91D3A6D39 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Feb 2009 17:51:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.522
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.522 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.077, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 C2cyAaSzxVW7 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Feb 2009 17:51:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rv-out-0506.google.com (rv-out-0506.google.com [209.85.198.231]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7882D3A6D35 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 9 Feb 2009 17:51:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: by rv-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id b25so1977807rvf.49 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 09 Feb 2009 17:51:08 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from :organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=qANjcow/zixM+xlJaYy4XqzC0Qf14lPeWlZs6LTzgss=; b=klWqErIgG3ZGgehgEloIatqdDQqAN49E4xLJZflQs2msLzPcqwGeP1q9K4WeuYq0Hn q49p8fwQQSlxSSWv92q1IFctZrikfUtOpt3UgRfQsJJfvsQIvjAf28ljMf8IWyQGSlF1 skZcFM+nypw7gf/77OEPpiArTV2KFy23c9MXQ=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=e0oI8Z5w1KC7RYmPzyLjU+g3IB6H+JS+WItpQZgn/26Jp7yC46L/lfHPRETEd4bkf6 9PWLNv5tibZxFVdopgApeiRhlovZu/ipojGRU2aZcWrxVqzgKDrXBzLZLuv1rtXLmOVC GrtmdtscgEhKIn/k7QuN/h+I5Yh3P6S+OHk1w=
Received: by 10.141.28.4 with SMTP id f4mr4323419rvj.164.1234230668660; Mon, 09 Feb 2009 17:51:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?130.216.38.124? (stf-brian.sfac.auckland.ac.nz [130.216.38.124]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id g31sm17683285rvb.2.2009.02.09.17.51.06 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Mon, 09 Feb 2009 17:51:07 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <4990DD75.3090206@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 14:50:45 +1300
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: FWIW: draft-housley-tls-authz-extns-07.txt to Proposed Standard
References: <498F9419.80300@ieee.org>
In-Reply-To: <498F9419.80300@ieee.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 01:51:07 -0000

FWIW (and it would be good if other actual
IETF participants care to indicate +1 if they agree):

The actual words in RedPhone's current disclosure:

"RedPhone Security hereby asserts that the techniques for
sending and receiving authorizations defined in TLS Authorizations
Extensions (version draft-housley-tls-authz-extns-07.txt) do not
infringe upon RedPhone Security's intellectual property rights (IPR)..."

Now, there's been some discussion of whether some use cases for
the protocol will nevertheless lead implementors to infringe, but
that (plus the question of whether the offered license conditions
in that case are in fact acceptable) is frankly irrelevant. The
draft on the table is in itself unencumbered by RedPhone Security,
and that's all that matters as far as the IETF's IPR rules go.

There may be other reasons not to advance this document; not being
a security person, I have no opinion about that. But as far as this
particular IPR issue is concerned, IMHO it's good to go.

    Brian