The WG's inability to choose is good in this case.
HUGO@watson.ibm.com Fri, 20 September 1996 17:26 UTC
Received: from relay.hq.tis.com by neptune.TIS.COM id aa26775; 20 Sep 96 13:26 EDT
Received: by relay.hq.tis.com; id NAA13069; Fri, 20 Sep 1996 13:30:26 -0400
From: HUGO@watson.ibm.com
MMDF-Warning: Parse error in original version of preceding line at neptune.TIS.COM
Received: from sol.hq.tis.com(10.33.1.100) by relay.tis.com via smap (V3.1.1) id xma013053; Fri, 20 Sep 96 13:29:55 -0400
Received: from relay.hq.tis.com by tis.com (4.1/SUN-5.64) id AA21448; Fri, 20 Sep 96 13:29:06 EDT
Received: by relay.hq.tis.com; id NAA13045; Fri, 20 Sep 1996 13:29:54 -0400
Received: from igw2.watson.ibm.com(129.34.139.6) by relay.tis.com via smap (V3.1.1) id xma013037; Fri, 20 Sep 96 13:29:40 -0400
Received: from mailhub1.watson.ibm.com (mailhub1.watson.ibm.com [9.2.249.31]) by igw2.watson.ibm.com (8.7.6/8.7.1) with ESMTP id NAA22386 for <ipsec@TIS.COM>; Fri, 20 Sep 1996 13:32:32 -0400
Received: from yktvmv.watson.ibm.com (yktvmv.watson.ibm.com [9.117.33.29]) by mailhub1.watson.ibm.com (8.7.1/09-08-96) with SMTP id NAA539864 for <ipsec%TIS.COM@watson.ibm.com>; Fri, 20 Sep 1996 13:18:14 -0400
Message-Id: <199609201718.NAA539864@mailhub1.watson.ibm.com>
Received: from YKTVMV by yktvmv.watson.ibm.com (IBM VM SMTP V2R3) with BSMTP id 8528; Fri, 20 Sep 96 13:18:11 EDT
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 11:57:34 -0400
To: ipsec@TIS.COM
Subject: The WG's inability to choose is good in this case.
Sender: ipsec-approval@neptune.tis.com
Precedence: bulk
Ref: Your note of Thu, 19 Sep 1996 15:04:33 -0700 (PDT) (attached) > > > One personal clarification regarding (2): in my opinion, there is a > > strong technical basis to require key exchange/refreshment via authenticated > > handshakes as supported by Oakley (even if in-line keying is also supported > > by the protocol). > > Doesn't IBM have a patent on this? > > --tom > IBM has a patent that cover some techniques for key refreshment (more precisley for two-party authentication protocols). IBM has granted a free license for use of this patent (US Patent 5,148,479) in connection to IKMP. For the exact "grant of rights" text see RFC1822. Therefore, there is no reason to avoid these techniques; in particular, Oakley incorporates them already. BTW, this patent (files 3/91 issued 9/92) pre-dates any work in the IPSEC WG. None of the new work that we did in relation to this WG activity (e.g., MKMP, SKEME, HMAC) and which is now incorporated into current WG drafts (Oakley, AH, etc) has been patented by us. Hugo >