Matthew and all, I don't and haven't assumed that Certicom has any "Protections" with respect to any form or type of "TLS extractor". But I for one am glad that you have taken the time to clarify such as true. I also have serious doubts that Certicom has any Patent claim to ECC other than perhaps your own specific product that may/does use ECC. Could please clarify that please?
Matthew Campagna wrote: > In Hopes of Clarifying, > > Since I filled out the form in question I would hope that you consider > these comments with a little more weight than others' wild speculations about > the intention of IPR #1154. > > I do not read that IPR #1154 claims to have patents that cover the > draft-ietf-tls-extractor, and perhaps more importantly, nor was it my > intention to indicate any such claims. > > I do recognize that it is listed in the section > > IV. IETF Document or Other Contribution to Which this IPR Disclosure > Relates: > > I believe this to be correct as the free license being offered extends a > license to use the following suites, to which we are making some claims, > > A. "Elliptic Curve Cryptography (ECC) Cipher Suites for Transport > Layer Security(TLS)" RFC 4492, May 2006; or, > B. $B!H(BTLS Elliptic Curve Cipher Suites with SHA$B!>(B256/384 > and AES Galois Counter Mode,$B!I(B RFC 5289, or > C. $B!H(BSuite B Cipher Suites for TLS,$B!I(B > draft$B!>(Brescorla$B!>(Btls$B!>(Bsuiteb$B!>(B 07.txt; > > if one wants to use them in the draft-ietf-tls-extractor, under the > conditions in a linked document. Hence, I believe that the license is > extending intellectual property rights that 'relates' to > draft-ietf-tls-extractor. I do not equate 'relates' to claiming rights over. > > I do read that IPR #1154 claims to have patents that cover parts of > documents listed in, > > V Disclosure of Patent Information (i.e., patents or patent applications > required to be disclosed by Section 6 of RFC 3979) > > C If an Internet-Draft or RFC includes multiple parts and it is not > reasonably apparent which part of such Internet-Draft or RFC is alleged to be > covered by the patent information disclosed in Section V(A) or V(B), it is > helpful if the discloser identifies here the sections of the Internet-Draft > or RFC that are alleged to be so covered: > > Where it lists: > > RFC 3278, RFC 4109, RFC 4492, RFC 4753, RFC 4754, RFC 4869, RFC 5008, RFC > 5289, draft-rescorla-tls-suiteb-12, draft-green-secsh-ecc-07, > draft-igoe-secsh-suiteb-00, draft-ietf-smime-3278bis-07, > draft-ietf-smime-sha2-11 > > Note that draft-ietf-tls-extractor is not listed in the I-D or RFCs part of > which the listed patents claim to cover. > > Therefore a reasonable person should be able to conclude that the statement > is not making a claim that patents listed cover parts of the > draft-ietf-tls-extractor. > > As stated prior, I think the form being used creates the confusion at hand. > There is no clear definition of what should be in section IV versus section > V. C. Should more exact language be added to the form, I would be happy to > update the IPR statement to help remove some stated uncertainties. > > Further the RFC 3979 indicates the following: > > 6.3. How Must a Disclosure be Made? > > IPR disclosures are made by following the instructions at > http://www.ietf.org/ipr-instructions. > > A link I think most will find particularly amusing. > > Regards, > Matt > > Matthew Campagna | Director, Certicom Research > Certicom Corp. | A Subsidiary of Research In Motion Limited > > mcampa...@certicom.com > direct 203.894.9777 > mobile 203.240.1269 > www.certicom.com > > _______________________________________________ > TLS mailing list > t...@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 284k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "YES WE CAN!" Barack ( Berry ) Obama "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkck...@ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
