[lamps] Re: WG Last Call for draft-ietf-lamps-kyber-certificates-07

["D. J. Bernstein" <[e-mail]>]

> > One can't implement draft-ietf-lamps-kyber-certificates-07 without
> > implementing Kyber. The Zhao claim that "Kyber is covered by our
> > patents" is a known IPR claim regarding Kyber. Consequently, before
> > becoming an IETF RFC, the draft should be modified to allow alternatives
> > to Kyber.
> Or keep working as we are doing under the belief that there will be a
> royalty-free license before RFC publication.
> I am not advocating one position or another, just pointing out a flaw
> in your reasoning.

I don't see a basis for believing that there will be such a license. I
also don't see how such a belief is contradicting anything I said.

My understanding is that you're commenting on who's responsible for
achieving the results required by BCP 79. In particular, I think you're
suggesting that IETF WGs are free to ignore patent claims, shifting
responsibility to later stages of the IETF publication process to
enforce the BCP 79 requirements.

This, however, is contradicted by the introductory sentence of this
section of BCP 79, which assigns responsibility directly to WGs: "In
general, IETF working groups prefer technologies with no known IPR
claims or, for technologies with claims against them, an offer of
royalty-free licensing."

It's also part of the job of ADs to check whether WGs are following the
rules. This doesn't mean that the WGs are free to ignore the rules.
Please also note that any efforts to evade IETF rules are contrary to

    https://www.ietf.org/blog/ietf-llc-statement-competition-law-issues/

which, as part of arguing that IETF complies with antitrust law, claims
that IETF's procedural rules are "rigorously followed".

---D. J. Bernstein