Re: [IPsec] New criteria draft
"Dan Harkins" <dharkins@lounge.org> Thu, 11 March 2010 17:57 UTC
Return-Path: <dharkins@lounge.org>
X-Original-To: ipsec@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipsec@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 892E43A6DD2 for <ipsec@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Mar 2010 09:57:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.185
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.185 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.080, BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, 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 kjooGZoMBRRN for <ipsec@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Mar 2010 09:57:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from colo.trepanning.net (colo.trepanning.net [69.55.226.174]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 973B83A6922 for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Mar 2010 09:35:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from www.trepanning.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by colo.trepanning.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D56911022404A; Thu, 11 Mar 2010 09:35:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from 69.12.173.8 (SquirrelMail authenticated user dharkins@lounge.org) by www.trepanning.net with HTTP; Thu, 11 Mar 2010 09:35:43 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <39fb97c8009b2eefcbed01b9f77d9cea.squirrel@www.trepanning.net>
In-Reply-To: <7F9A6D26EB51614FBF9F81C0DA4CFEC801BE05E0C889@il-ex01.ad.checkpoint.co m>
References: <7F9A6D26EB51614FBF9F81C0DA4CFEC801BE05E0C889@il-ex01.ad.checkpoint.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 09:35:43 -0800
From: Dan Harkins <dharkins@lounge.org>
To: Yaron Sheffer <yaronf@checkpoint.com>
User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.14 [SVN]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
Importance: Normal
Cc: "ipsec@ietf.org" <ipsec@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [IPsec] New criteria draft
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion of IPsec protocols <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>, <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipsec>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>, <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 17:57:42 -0000
Hi Yaron, One comment you might've missed was this: Also, the table in section 5 should include IEEE 802.11s under the "standards" column for SPSK. And the phrase "may or may not infringe on existing patents" applies to all candidates, and frankly, to almost everything in the IETF. It is a meaningless phrase and it would be better to just remove it from the "IPR" column. That comment also received a "+1" from another commenter on the list. Also, I think this takes us down a particularly bad path: o Ideally, the proposal should be unencumbered. This property is very difficult to prove, and each WG participant should attempt to review the applicable patents and determine whether in fact they do not apply to the proposal. Remember that independently invented technology might still infringe a patent. o In some cases the IPR situation is clear: if the protocol relies on a specific patent, and believed to not require the use of any other. This is mostly useful if the patent's licensing terms (whether free or not) are known, and/or the patent's expiration date is near. So while we start off our criteria grandly with "it should be unencumbered" we immediately then dismiss that by saying we can't forget it might still be patented by some unknown patent. So "ideally" is just one of those states we cannot achieve because even if it's "unencumbered" it might not be. So that's off, what's next? If the IPR situation is clear, it relies on a specific patent and the patent's expiration date is near. So I guess we're just supposed to stop here, right? It is unwise for anyone to say what another IP holder will say with respect to his or her IPR. And there might be a patent that covers everything done in the IETF, we just don't know and it's not our job to prove a negative. So I think it would be very unfortunate if the discussion of candidates jumped down this rathole. We would have "I'm not a lawyer but..." followed by a contentious statement and 8 people jumping up to the queue on the mic to precede their comments with "I'm not a lawyer but..." and then make other contentious statements. I think the IPR content in this draft should be as simple as possible: o We live in a litigious world and patents are used as both a club and a shield. o Patents might or might not exist on every technology we discuss. o We should not attempt to prove or disprove whether this or that patent might or might not cover some technology. o It is not our job to prove that no patents apply to some technology. It would be great to choose a technology that does not require any licensing but as we've seen in the last couple days even the most straightforward and innocent of protocols that we choose to adopt can still be encumbered. regards, Dan. On Thu, March 11, 2010 1:17 am, Yaron Sheffer wrote: > Hi, > > Based on mailing list comments, I have posted a revision of > draft-sheffer-ipsecme-pake-criteria here: > http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/ipsecme/trac/wiki/TempDocs. I will submit it > as usual when the submission window reopens. > > Thanks, > Yaron > _______________________________________________ > IPsec mailing list > IPsec@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec >
- [IPsec] New criteria draft Yaron Sheffer
- Re: [IPsec] New criteria draft Dan Harkins
- Re: [IPsec] New criteria draft Yaron Sheffer
- Re: [IPsec] New criteria draft thomwu
- Re: [IPsec] New criteria draft Dan Harkins