RE: [tcpm] tcpsecure & IPR
Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar> Thu, 30 November 2006 02:52 UTC
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Gpc2D-0004RP-Ih; Wed, 29 Nov 2006 21:52:25 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Gpc2C-0004R7-8n for tcpm@ietf.org; Wed, 29 Nov 2006 21:52:24 -0500
Received: from smtp1.xmundo.net ([201.216.232.80]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Gpc2A-0002ff-Ln for tcpm@ietf.org; Wed, 29 Nov 2006 21:52:24 -0500
Received: from venus.xmundo.net (venus.xmundo.net [201.216.232.56]) by smtp1.xmundo.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id EBA5FF0C434; Wed, 29 Nov 2006 23:52:14 -0300 (ART)
Received: from fgont.gont.com.ar (157-184-231-201.fibertel.com.ar [201.231.184.157]) (authenticated bits=0) by venus.xmundo.net (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id kAU2pomY022168; Wed, 29 Nov 2006 23:52:06 -0300
Message-Id: <7.0.1.0.0.20061129041057.0542f438@gont.com.ar>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.0.1.0
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 04:23:35 -0300
To: "Mitesh Dalal (mdalal)" <mdalal@cisco.com>, tcpm@ietf.org
From: Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar>
Subject: RE: [tcpm] tcpsecure & IPR
In-Reply-To: <13D1EAB852BE194C94773A947138483D02B67984@xmb-sjc-21c.amer. cisco.com>
References: <13D1EAB852BE194C94773A947138483D02B67984@xmb-sjc-21c.amer.cisco.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH authentication, not delayed by milter-greylist-2.0.2 (venus.xmundo.net [201.216.232.56]); Wed, 29 Nov 2006 23:52:13 -0300 (ART)
X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: cf3becbbd6d1a45acbe2ffd4ab88bdc2
Cc:
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <tcpm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:tcpm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org
Mitesh, Thanks for your answer. However, I don't think that presentation addresses my concerns. There's one basic concern that I have: Let's say I want to encourage vendors to implement tcpsecure. Vendors will want to be assured that they want have to pay anything, or be sued, or whatever. However, I have not been able to find an "official" statement by Cisco regarding this whole issue. Scott may be extremely accurate and right in what he says. But, as he acknowledges in his presentation, he is not speaking for Cisco. A vendor willing to implement tcpsecure will want to read a statement from Cisco claiming whether vendors implementing tcpsecure will have to pay a royalty, or whatever. In the event that somebody implemented tcpsecure, and then Cisco sued them for that, I don't think vendors will be able to defend themselves by claiming "Scott said that we wouldn't have to pay anything". The presentation does not say whether the pending patent is on all the countermeasures, or only on some of them, either. Kindest regards, Fernando Gont >Scott did a presentation on this topic. The slides are >at: >http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/04aug/slides/tcpm-11.pdf > >Hope this should demystify some of your Qs. > >Mitesh > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Fernando Gont [mailto:fernando@gont.com.ar] > > Sent: Monday, November 27, 2006 4:53 AM > > To: tcpm@ietf.org > > Subject: [tcpm] tcpsecure & IPR > > > > Folks, > > > > I was having a look at the tcpsecure doc, and at some point I > > recalled the issue of the pending patent, etc. > > > > A few questions with respect to this issue: > > > > * Is the pending patent on all the mitigations, or just on > > some of them? If so, which ones? > > * Do vendors have to do paperwork with Cisco (or whoever) > > before being able to implement this? No matter what the > > answer to this one > > is: Is there any online documentation of this that one could > > show to vendors willing to implement this (but afraid of the > > patent thing)? > > * Any data regarding implementation of these counter-measures > > by vendors other than Cisco & Juniper? Open source OSes? > > > > Thanks! > > > > Kindest regards, > > > > -- > > Fernando Gont > > e-mail: fernando@gont.com.ar || fgont@acm.org PGP > > Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > tcpm mailing list > > tcpm@ietf.org > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm > > > >_______________________________________________ >tcpm mailing list >tcpm@ietf.org >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm -- Fernando Gont e-mail: fernando@gont.com.ar || fgont@acm.org PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1 _______________________________________________ tcpm mailing list tcpm@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm
- [tcpm] tcpsecure & IPR Fernando Gont
- RE: [tcpm] tcpsecure & IPR Mitesh Dalal (mdalal)
- RE: [tcpm] tcpsecure & IPR Fernando Gont
- RE: [tcpm] tcpsecure & IPR Anantha Ramaiah (ananth)