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

David Morris <dwm@xpasc.com> Tue, 28 July 2009 01:34 UTC

Return-Path: <dwm@xpasc.com>
X-Original-To: tls@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tls@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A62C3A6AAB; Mon, 27 Jul 2009 18:34:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.932
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.932 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.333, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IXXrqFeDwfU9; Mon, 27 Jul 2009 18:34:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.xpasc.com (mail.xpasc.com [68.164.244.189]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FBAA3A68B9; Mon, 27 Jul 2009 18:34:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bslepgate.xpasc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by bslepgate.xpasc.com (Postfix-out) with ESMTP id 039F1100585; Mon, 27 Jul 2009 18:34:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Propel-Return-Path: <dwm@xpasc.com>
Received: from mail.xpasc.com ([10.1.2.88]) by [127.0.0.1] ([127.0.0.1]) (port 7027) (Abaca EPG outproxy filter 3.1.1.9347 $Rev: 9262 $) id iz6Ur97s1yT0; Mon, 27 Jul 2009 18:34:55 -0700
Received: from xpasc.com (egate.xpasc.com [10.1.2.49]) by bslepgate.xpasc.com (Postfix-out) with ESMTP id D85A9100584; Mon, 27 Jul 2009 18:34:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from egate.xpasc.com (egate.xpasc.com [10.1.2.49]) by xpasc.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n6S1Ysue001789; Mon, 27 Jul 2009 18:34:54 -0700
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 18:34:54 -0700
From: David Morris <dwm@xpasc.com>
To: tls@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <E1MU9jO-0007UF-Sl@fencepost.gnu.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0907271827260.9130@egate.xpasc.com>
References: <026364d64021d6cef8b930cf16df1221.squirrel@www.trepanning.net> <Pine.LNX.4.44.0907201645020.16218-100000@citation2.av8.net> <20090721195028.GQ1020@Sun.COM> <E1MTkBi-0007Gi-5e@fencepost.gnu.org> <20090722223622.GP1020@Sun.COM> <E1MU9jO-0007UF-Sl@fencepost.gnu.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
X-Propel-ID: iz6Ur97s1yT0
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 08:09:39 -0700
Subject: Re: [TLS] Last Call: draft-ietf-tls-extractor (Keying Material Exporters for Transport Layer Security (TLS)) to Proposed Standard
X-BeenThere: tls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "This is the mailing list for the Transport Layer Security working group of the IETF." <tls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls>, <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls>
List-Post: <mailto:tls@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls>, <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 01:34:58 -0000

On Thu, 23 Jul 2009, Richard Stallman wrote:


> Generally speaking, standards are useful, because they enable people
> to converge what they are doing.  But that ceases to be true when the
> use of the standard is patented.  It is better to have no standard
> than have a standard that invites people into danger.

An opinion with which I would differ ... patent encumbered documented 
behavior is ALWAYS better than no public documentation for commonly used 
protocols. As a person with frequent exposure to the operational 
troubleshooting side of networks, lack of accessible documentation is 
intolerable.

There is no trap when an SDO documents a protocol and publishes that 
documentation with a caveat that includes documentation of one or more 
patent claims related to the published protocol. Any fool who implements 
the protocol without resolving those issues deserves what the get. The 
trap is the case where the patent or other IP claim isn't revealed.