Re: [KAML] Re: Chicago bar-BOF summary

Gerald Beuchelt wrote:
> It is my understanding (and I am also no lawyer!) that the article by 
> John Brezak carries a patent license regarding the actual content of the 
> document itself.
> 
> Now, this document specifies the PAC for Windows 2000, with the 
> exception of 18 reserved fields. What it also does not specify is any 
> PAC changes in XP, 2003, Vista, or 2008. It also does not specify any 
> backend infrastructure (e.g. discovery or resolution services, policy 
> tools, or data storage, etc.) that might or might not be covered by 
> patents or other intellectual property rights. Also, some of the default 
> SIDs in the Windows implementation that are required for evaluating 
> group membership (e.g. EVERYONE, etc.) are also not included in this 
> document.
> 

There was also the IETF:
draft-brezak-win2k-krb-authz-01.txt
from October 2002, I still have a copy, but does not address XP, 2003
or Vista.

Samba has been working on using the PAC created by Windows, and trying
to get XP to use a Samba/Heimdal created PAC. So they may have addressed
a lot of these issues.

http://samba.org/ftp/unpacked/trunk-cluster/source/libads/authdata.c
referes to KERB_VALIDATION_INFO

> In addition, I do seem to remember that Microsoft at some time offered a 
> complete description (purportedly including the 18 reserved fields) of 
> the PAC that came with a license explicitly prohibiting implementation. 
> Since I did not touch this document, I cannot speak to its actual content.
> So, as I am not a lawyer, I am quite paranoid when it comes to other 
> people's IPR and license terms. Therefore I am just cautioning the use 
> of these specifications, since they are (i) old (Windows 2000), (ii) not 
> peer-reviewed, and (iii) not published by an established standards 
> organization with a clear IPR regime.
> 
> Sorry to be such a pain, but if the majority of this group is intend on 
> pursuing the NT PAC path, I would suggest that someone approaches 
> Microsoft to get clarification about the status of the spec.
> 

I don't think trying to add something to the Microsoft PAC is a good idea.
But if they add something "Level of assurance" to the PAC using it is
another story.

Adding another auth_data element of SAML does not require the Microsoft PAC.

> Best,
> 
> Gerald
> 
> 
> Henry B. Hotz wrote:
>>
>> On Sep 13, 2007, at 12:32 PM, Gerald Beuchelt wrote:
>>
>>> However, note that there is no patent covenant or even simple 
>>> licensing terms for the backend infrastructure, so while implementing 
>>> these data structures might be covered *to the extend that they are 
>>> documented here), the necessary backend infrastructure might require 
>>> additional licensing and royalties.
>>
>> I'm not sure what you mean.  Can you give an example of something that 
>> might require a license?  In my mind (I'm not a lawyer) an 
>> implementation is either independent, or not.  Since Microsoft doesn't 
>> publish actual code for any of this an implementation is either 
>> pirated from unpublished code, or it's independent, isn't it?
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> The opinions expressed in this message are mine,
>> not those of Caltech, JPL, NASA, or the US Government.
>> Henry.B.Hotz@jpl.nasa.gov, or hbhotz@oxy.edu
>>
>>
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> KAML mailing list
> KAML@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/kaml

-- 

  Douglas E. Engert  <DEEngert@anl.gov>
  Argonne National Laboratory
  9700 South Cass Avenue
  Argonne, Illinois  60439
  (630) 252-5444

_______________________________________________
KAML mailing list
KAML@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/kaml