Re: [OAUTH-WG] Fw: IPR Disclosure: - What to Do with JWT ?

[Oleg Gryb <[e-mail]>]

Prateek,

It's not so much a "patent claim" discussion as a suggestion to do something different than JWT if it's really protected by somebody's patents. It's a public standard after all and it's in the interests of everyone to keep it this way.  

--- On Thu, 2/28/13, prateek mishra <[e-mail]> wrote:

From: prateek mishra <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Fw:  IPR Disclosure: - What to Do with JWT ?
To: "Hannes Tschofenig" <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail], [e-mail]
Date: Thursday, February 28, 2013, 4:53 PM

Two points  -

1) I request that this mailing list NOT be used for any substantive 
discussion of patent claims and so on. This will create difficulties for 
many participants and
I dont believe is within the charter of this effort.

2) I would encourage interested parties to review the following 
document, which may be relevant to this discussion

http://www.w3.org/2011/xmlsec-pag/

- prateek

> Hi Oleg,
>
> my personal experience with Certicom's IPR disclosures is that they 
> focus on Elliptic Curve Cryptography. There were several IPR 
> disclosures on documents in the JOSE WG and some of them contain ECC 
> algorithms.
>
> The JWT does not list an ECC algorithm but the referenced documents do.
>
> Having said that the two cited IPRs seem to be:
> http://www.google.com/patents/US6704870
> http://www.google.com/patents/US7215773
>
> Take a look at it and make your assessment whether there is anything 
> we can change.
>
> Ciao
> Hannes
>
>
> On 02/28/2013 09:21 PM, Oleg Gryb wrote:
>> Dear OAuth WG and Chairs,
>>
>> Can somebody please comment the Certicom's disclosure below? If the
>> purpose of this disclosure is to inform us that JWT can be potentially a
>> subject of royalties and other possible legal actions, the value of
>> adopting JWT in the scope of OAuth 2.0 IETF standard would definitely
>> diminish and if this is the case shouldn't we consider replacing it with
>> something similar, but different, which would not be a subject of the
>> future possible litigation?
>>
>> I'm not a lawyer and might not understand the statement below correctly,
>> so please let me know if/where I'm wrong. Please keep in mind also that
>> the popularity of JWT is growing fast along with the implementations, so
>> we need to do something quickly.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Oleg.
>>
>>
>> --- On *Wed, 2/27/13, IETF Secretariat /<[e-mail]>/* wrote:
>>
>>
>>     From: IETF Secretariat <[e-mail]>
>>     Subject: [OAUTH-WG] IPR Disclosure: Certicom Corporation's Statement
>>     about IPR related to draft-ietf-oauth-json-web-token-06 (2)
>>     To: [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]
>>     Cc: [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]
>>     Date: Wednesday, February 27, 2013, 4:16 PM
>>
>>
>>     Dear Michael Jones, John Bradley, Nat Sakimura:
>>
>>     An IPR disclosure that pertains to your Internet-Draft entitled
>>     "JSON Web Token
>>     (JWT)" (draft-ietf-oauth-json-web-token) was submitted to the IETF
>>     Secretariat
>>     on 2013-02-20 and has been posted on the "IETF Page of Intellectual
>>     Property
>>     Rights Disclosures" (https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1968/). The
>>     title of the
>>     IPR disclosure is "Certicom Corporation's Statement about IPR
>>     related to draft-
>>     ietf-oauth-json-web-token-06 (2)."");
>>
>>     The IETF Secretariat
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     OAuth mailing list
>>     [e-mail] </mc/compose?to=[e-mail]>
>>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> OAuth mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>>
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth

_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth