IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [IPsec] Stephen Farrell's Yes on draft-ietf-ipsecme-ddos-protection-09: (with COMMENT)

Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> Tue, 27 September 2016 19:31 UTC

Return-Path: <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
X-Original-To: ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94A6912B4AC; Tue, 27 Sep 2016 12:31:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.617
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.617 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-2.316, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cs.tcd.ie
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CkdhXpjDvjIn; Tue, 27 Sep 2016 12:30:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [134.226.56.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3C38B12B4B1; Tue, 27 Sep 2016 12:30:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id A832ABE49; Tue, 27 Sep 2016 20:30:54 +0100 (IST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at scss.tcd.ie
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OIwUmcnOMBjh; Tue, 27 Sep 2016 20:30:52 +0100 (IST)
Received: from [10.87.48.210] (95-45-153-252-dynamic.agg2.phb.bdt-fng.eircom.net [95.45.153.252]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 46269BE47; Tue, 27 Sep 2016 20:30:52 +0100 (IST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cs.tcd.ie; s=mail; t=1475004652; bh=5XQwhL267vb0tZWaGQ2Ec+lyIp28/4KSX4IQLs0BXcM=; h=Subject:To:References:Cc:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=EOeaGeXsn+7b1aPp7pPaCG5N0iPq8jDrwhG1ER3zRyXuHURQI/g7Rl965A9cQoRzn HZZlK52rKZABYE+qyNloH4s8Oc3zaBtYdOphR3skzXh+OtbW0xm/VdvRlWfEfC4T9v cC7w8M7qPFgl3IKzZUkYUpOLVZ6yXvQIH/7ugmYM=
To: Yoav Nir <ynir.ietf@gmail.com>
References: <147499618776.4465.11672584634820556976.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <3583754A-964B-4BAF-85DC-126373EF8857@gmail.com>
From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Openpgp: id=D66EA7906F0B897FB2E97D582F3C8736805F8DA2; url=
Message-ID: <fa8e387d-749e-ace8-1100-8202e01471ea@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2016 20:30:52 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <3583754A-964B-4BAF-85DC-126373EF8857@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha-256"; boundary="------------ms060706070609060409010406"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipsec/IeOdWjKH3pKUJzpE6mDRwbWVt-Q>
Cc: ipsec@ietf.org, ipsecme-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-ipsecme-ddos-protection@ietf.org, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, David Waltermire <david.waltermire@nist.gov>
Subject: Re: [IPsec] Stephen Farrell's Yes on draft-ietf-ipsecme-ddos-protection-09: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion of IPsec protocols <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipsec>, <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Tue, 27 Sep 2016 19:31:00 -0000


On 27/09/16 20:21, Yoav Nir wrote:
> Looking at the IPR statement you linked to, it does not seem relevant
> to me, but IANAL. The proof-of-work scheme described in the patent
> ([2]) involves setting a time limit for the client to complete the
> puzzle solution. The puzzle in our draft has a set difficulty level,
> but no time limit for the Initiator to solve it.

FWIW, that sounds reasonable to me. But I've given up pondering
what lawyers think about patents so folks can make up their own
minds;-)

S.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email