Re: draft-metzger-ah-00.txt

"Perry E. Metzger" <perry@imsi.com> Thu, 02 February 1995 19:11 UTC

Received: from interlock.ans.net by nis.ans.net with SMTP id AA22868 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for <archive-ipsec@nis.ans.net>); Thu, 2 Feb 1995 14:11:43 -0500
Received: by interlock.ans.net id AA13022 (InterLock SMTP Gateway 1.1 for ipsec-out@ans.net); Thu, 2 Feb 1995 14:07:40 -0500
Received: by interlock.ans.net (Internal Mail Agent-4); Thu, 2 Feb 1995 14:07:40 -0500
Received: by interlock.ans.net (Internal Mail Agent-3); Thu, 2 Feb 1995 14:07:40 -0500
Received: by interlock.ans.net (Internal Mail Agent-2); Thu, 2 Feb 1995 14:07:40 -0500
Received: by interlock.ans.net (Internal Mail Agent-1); Thu, 2 Feb 1995 14:07:40 -0500
Message-Id: <9502021905.AA29275@snark.imsi.com>
To: iialan@iifeak.swan.ac.uk
Cc: ipsec@ans.net
Subject: Re: draft-metzger-ah-00.txt
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 02 Feb 1995 18:19:00 GMT." <m0ra68J-00016tC@iiit.swan.ac.uk>
Reply-To: perry@imsi.com
X-Reposting-Policy: redistribute only with permission
Date: Thu, 02 Feb 1995 14:05:47 -0500
From: "Perry E. Metzger" <perry@imsi.com>

Alan Cox says:
> Third:
> 	I'm told Novell now have a patent on packet signing. Does it cover
> this area and if so what now ?

They have an invalid patent -- a clearly, obviously, and completely
invalid patent. There is plenty of prior art that is in writing from
over one year before the date of their application. They did not, not,
not invent the idea of keyed hashes, which existed for a very long
time. I intend to ignore the patent, as do others that I have spoken
to. If Novell wishes to, they may contact my attorneys. This is
perhaps an agressive stance to take, but I'm very confident in my
position.

Perry