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

Phil:

>For the people who want this draft published (and perhaps have a pending
>implementation), would you please humour me by offering some usage
>scenarios, other than debugging or toys, which would meet security
>review and which are not covered by the four points which the
>patent-holder notes as potentially encumbered?

I'll offer one based on attribute certificates (see RFC 3281).  If 
the attribute certificate policy does not use a critical certificate 
policy identifier that is within an arc registered to RedPhone 
Security (e.g. iso.org.dod.internet.private.enterprise.23106), then 
the most straightforward deployments would not encounter problems 
with this IPR Statement.  RFC 3281 specifies ways to carry access 
identities, group memberships, roles, and clearances in attribute 
certificates.  As long as these are not coupled to signed agreements 
such as contracts, as is their normal use, then I cannot see problems 
with this IPR statement.

This is one example.  I believe there are many more.

Russ

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