Re: Fourth Last Call: draft-housley-tls-authz-extns

Dean and the IESG:

I will respond to some, but not all of Dean's points.

>3. --There have been reports of similar issues in recent lawsuit where
>the plaintiff patent-holder acted similarly to Housley/Brown/Polk et al
>and was found to have engaged in "aggravated litigation abuse". In that
>case, the Judge ruled the patents unenforceable as a penalty for the
>deception of the standards body in that case.  (see
>http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipr-wg/current/msg05089.html and
>http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/07-1545.pdf)

This case, and at least two others like it, argue the opposite 
point.  Patent claims were placed in the public domain after the 
court ruled that the patent-holder had not followed the appropriate 
procedures during development of the standard.  In all of the cases 
that I am aware of, the standards documents were published prior to 
the courts getting involved.

>4. --There is no community consensus to proceed, nor any demand from the
>community to have this protocol standardized.

Several people have asked that this document proceed, including some 
researchers at Columbia University that want to make use of the protocol.

>5. --There is only one implementation: Brown&Housley's

First, I do not have an implementation.  Second, I know that at least 
one other exists.  It was developed for GnuTLS, but it is not being 
distributed at the moment.  It will be interesting to see if the 
revised IPR statement is sufficient change this situation.

Russ 

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf