Re: [TLS] TLS WG Chair Comments on draft-ietf-tls-authz-07

["Angelos D. Keromytis" <[e-mail]>]

Alfred,
neither of the cited KeyNote drafts (nor the KeyNote system itself) is  
patent-encumbered. However, I admit to not (yet) having paid close  
attention to the details of the IPR issues around tls-authz-extns  
itself and their potential impact to tls-authz-keynote.

I have started draft-keromytis-keynote-x509-01 through the RFC- 
fication process (currently discussing with a reviewer), since it does  
not depend on authz (or any other pending work in any WG). I have been  
waiting for tls-authz-extns to go through the process before I start  
with draft-keromytis-tls-authz-keynote-01. I invite every interested  
party to send me comments. You may find it useful to first read RFCs  
2704 (at least the first few sections) and 2792.
Best,
-Angelos


On Feb 11, 2009, at 7:02 PM, Alfred HÎnes wrote:

> At Wed, 11 Feb 2009 16:20:14 -0500 (EST), Dean Anderson  wrote:
>
>>                                                      ...  And as
>> programmer and developer, I will probably have some non-patented
>> alternatives to present.
>>
>>              --Dean
>
> Dean,
> that's really laudable progress, leading back to technical discussion
> of possible alternative solutions.
> Please indeed prepare such I-D as soon as feasible.
>
>
> I heartly invite other interested parties as well to submit their
> proposals to the TLS WG, and I hereby explicitely would like to
> address those many folks that newly started being interested in
> IETF work in general and further development and application of
> TLS in particular.
>
> In order to make life easier for all participants,
> I suggest to start with streamlined draft names like
> draft-<author>-tlz-authz-<xxx>-00 .
>
> The WG should be able to perform an unprejudized discussion
> of alternative proposals before it comes to determine consensus
> whether there is enough interest and support to warrant adopting
> 'TLS Authorization' as a new work item, and if so, which
> draft(s) to base the WG project on.
>
> I personally promise to review sound draft proposals in time
> before such WG decision (perhaps not initial -00 versions,
> only enough elaborate refined versions).
>
>
> One immediate question to the group and the respective author:
>
> Draft-housley-tls-authz-extns only defines a framework, and
> according to the past exegesis of the imprecise IPR statements
> under discussion, only the application of that framework to
> specific use cases might be encumbered by these claims.
> However, the recent I-D, draft-keromytis-tls-authz-keynote-01,
> together with a supporting sibling document,
> draft-keromytis-keynote-x509-01 (both still rough and lacking
> important details), defines a concrete instantiation of that
> framework.
> In how far is that instantiation encumbered by these IPR claims?
> Is it burdened with other patent claims?
>
>
> Kind regards,
>  Alfred HÎnes.
>
> -- 
>
> +------------------------ 
> +--------------------------------------------+
> | TR-Sys Alfred Hoenes   |  Alfred Hoenes   Dipl.-Math., Dipl.- 
> Phys.  |
> | Gerlinger Strasse 12   |  Phone: [phone], Fax:  
> -18         |
> | D-71254  Ditzingen     |  E-Mail:  ah@TR- 
> Sys.de                     |
> +------------------------ 
> +--------------------------------------------+
>
>