Re: [TLS] Last Call: draft-ietf-tls-extractor (Keying Material Exporters for Transport Layer Security (TLS)) to Proposed Standard

[Stephen Kent <[e-mail]>]

At 10:05 AM -0400 8/5/09, Dean Anderson wrote:
>Ned and Stephen,
>
>If you mean the recent message traffic about the 'intention to remove'
>extractor from a list of patented documents, that hasn't happened so far
>and an 'intention to remove' doesn't mean it isn't patented. It is
>possible that Certicom can later say it was a misunderstanding and that
>the official documents were correct. As evidence of their view, they
>have the official documents.  As evidence of your view, you have an
>unofficial and vague email message apparently contrary to the official
>documents, and you will have to argue you based your decision on the
>unofficial and vague message rather than the official IPR Disclosures. 
>I think one cannot get to a Qualcomm v. Broadcomm finding under such
>circumstances.

I reiterate my support for the cited I-D. period.

Steve