Re: NAT-T
Markus Friedl <markus@openbsd.org> Fri, 13 June 2003 16:17 UTC
Received: from lists.tislabs.com (portal.gw.tislabs.com [192.94.214.101]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA11017 for <ipsec-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 12:17:38 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by lists.tislabs.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) id KAA20327 Fri, 13 Jun 2003 10:29:32 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 16:32:09 +0200
From: Markus Friedl <markus@openbsd.org>
To: ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
Cc: Paul Hoffman / VPNC <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>, Jakob Schlyter <jakob@openbsd.org>, HÃ¥kan Olsson <ho@openbsd.org>
Subject: Re: NAT-T
Message-ID: <20030613143209.GA5863@folly>
References: <Pine.OSX.4.56.0306112124000.3301@criollo.schlyter.se> <p05210616bb0d342d304a@[63.202.92.152]> <20030612114352.GA28314@folly> <p05210624bb0e55a8240a@[63.202.92.152]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <p05210624bb0e55a8240a@[63.202.92.152]>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Sender: owner-ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
Precedence: bulk
Hi, Paul Hoffman think is hould take this to the WG list: We are trying to add support for NAT-T to the OpenBSD IPsec stack, but because of the confusing IPR claims about NAT-T (e.g. http://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/MICROSOFT-NAT-Traversal.txt) we are not sure what part of NAT-T can be integrated into OpenBSD without risking patent related problems. Any help appreciated, -markus On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 09:09:23AM -0700, Paul Hoffman / VPNC wrote: > At 1:43 PM +0200 6/12/03, Markus Friedl wrote: > >On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 12:38:32PM -0700, Paul Hoffman / VPNC wrote: > >> >If Microsoft's contribution(s) is(are) included in an IETF standard and > >> >Microsoft has patent rights that are essential to implement such > >> >standard, Microsoft is prepared to grant a license to the necessary > >> >claims of Microsoft patent rights, to the extent that such claims are > >> >required to implement that IETF standard, on a royalty-free basis with > >> >other reasonable and non-discriminatory terms and conditions, provided a > >> >reciprocal license is granted to Microsoft for any patent claims > >> >necessary to implement the following IETF NAT-Traversal drafts: > >> ><draft-ietf-ipsec-nat-t-ike-03.txt> and > >> ><draft-ietf-ipsec-udp-encaps-03.txt>. > >> > >> Hope this helps. > > > >Hm, the problem with this statement is, that's almost of no value. > >It states "Microsoft is prepared to grant a license", "If Microsoft's > >contribution(s) is(are) included in an IETF standard", so this text > >grants nothing and can be applied to anything. > > Actually, that's standard wording for IETF IPR for companies doing > The Right Thing. Companies doing The Typical Thing do not include the > "royalty-free" clause. So Microsoft is being good here. > > >So I'm not sure what part of NAT-T can be integrated into OpenBSD > >without risking patent related problems. > > That is always true. And you certainly shouldn't do anything until > whatever Microsoft claims becomes part of a standard. That is, if it > doesn't become part of a standard, Microsoft isn't giving away > anything (and I agree with that stance on their part). > > You might want to take this to the WG mailing list. > > --Paul Hoffman, Director > --VPN Consortium
- Re: NAT-T Markus Friedl