Re: [sidr] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-algs-16: (with COMMENT)

["Ben Campbell" <[e-mail]>]

On 12 Dec 2016, at 9:07, Alvaro Retana (aretana) wrote:

> On 12/12/16, 8:34 AM, "Mirja Kuehlewind" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Mirja:
>
> Hi!
>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> COMMENT:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Just a thought: Would it be useful to add an IESG note saying 
>> something
>> like in the sheperd write-up:
>> "[...] there are published references
>>     that preceded the filing of the patent, especially those 
>>     mentioned in RFC6090.  RFC6090 notes that its descriptions
>>     "may be useful for implementing the fundamental algorithms 
>> without 
>>     using any of the  specialized methods that were developed 
>> in 
>>     following years.""
>> I know we usuall don't do things like this. But I'm wondering how 
>> someone
>> who wants to implement this should figure this out otherwise....?
>
> I think we would be getting too close to taking a stance on the 
> validity, enforceability of the IPR.  The WG has already discussed and 
> chose to go ahead.
>
> RFC6090 is a normative reference for this document, pointing at the 
> signature algorithm to be used.  Any implementer would have to at 
> least check out RFC6090 and would find the text above in the Abstract.

I agree with Alvaro, with the caveat that it would be more than "too 
close"; it would be the same as taking a stance on validity.

It's the implementors problem to consider IPR issues even without a 
disclosure.

Thanks!

Ben.