PROTECTED]
To: Thierry Moreau [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: ietf@ietf.org, [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Simon Josefsson [EMAIL PROTECTED], ietf@ietf.org, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Withdrawal of Approval and Second Last Call:
draft-housley-tls-authz-extns
On Fri, 27 Apr 2007, Thierry Moreau wrote:
Thus
Dear Mark:
You volunteered extensive explanations about the specifics of your
patent claims and licensing conditions per IPR disclosure 833. Thanks
for doing so. There is no agreement or consensus to reach on these
substantive questions, but your explanations may be useful to other
; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Withdrawal of Approval and Second Last Call: draft-housley-
tls-authz-extns
--On Monday, 23 April, 2007 17:17 -0500 Mark Brown
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
My understanding is this: The request for the GUL implies a
promise not to implement the PAS
John,
I should have responded in my last email:
I think you are being told --by a number of people and in
different ways-- that there is a perception that having to ask
for a license is seen as appreciably more burdensome and, for
various reasons, risky than if a general license is granted
Hi Simon,
It would be useful if you could explore with your lawyers if it is
actually easy for you to avoid problem (1). I'm wondering what
exactly the requirement for implementers to request this license
from you gives you. Your text suggest that you will never refuse to
grant the rights
Call:
draft-housley-tls-authz-extns
On Thu, 19 Apr 2007, Simon Josefsson wrote:
Finally, here is another problem to consider: Your patent isn't valid
in the entire world.
This isn't exactly true. RedphoneSecurity has a WIPO patent filing. That
gives them priority in every WIPO country
--On Monday, 23 April, 2007 17:17 -0500 Mark Brown
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
My understanding is this: The request for the GUL implies a
promise not to implement the PAS Functions. This promise is
valuable to RedPhone Security. If it's worth it to you to make
the GUL promise (for
Mark Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
However, if I understand the license correctly, it seems incompatible
with free software licenses. The RedPhone license contains:
1. General Use License
Upon request, RedPhone Security will provide a worldwide,
nonexclusive, fully-paid,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The authors asked for a week delay while they prepared a new IPR
disclosure. That disclosure seems to have hit the IETF servers
Ah, good. For easy reference, the new IPR disclosure is available
from:
Simon,
Can you identify any instance of a non-profit GPL implementor or
distributor being sued for not having sent a postcard for the
style of RF license you are objecting to?
Brian
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Simon,
Can you identify any instance of a non-profit GPL implementor or
distributor being sued for not having sent a postcard for the
style of RF license you are objecting to?
Brian, two responses:
1) You seem to assume that GPL implementers
Simon Josefsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
There are examples where companies won't respond to requests for these
type of RF patent licenses. A recent example that came to mind was
related to the BOCU patent by IBM:
http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.text.unicode.devel/23256
A better URL is:
On 2007-04-11 10:08, Simon Josefsson wrote:
Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Simon,
Can you identify any instance of a non-profit GPL implementor or
distributor being sued for not having sent a postcard for the
style of RF license you are objecting to?
Brian, two responses:
1)
Simon,
Do you have examples of licenses/IPR declarations that work better with
GPL and other forms of open source? Something for Mark and the rest
of us to use as a model, perhaps?
Jari
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 2007-04-11 10:08, Simon Josefsson wrote:
Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Simon,
Can you identify any instance of a non-profit GPL implementor or
distributor being sued for not having sent a postcard for the
style of RF license you
Jari Arkko [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Simon,
Do you have examples of licenses/IPR declarations that work better with
GPL and other forms of open source? Something for Mark and the rest
of us to use as a model, perhaps?
Jari, thank you for asking!
I am working on a document with guidelines
Just one comment:
Brian E Carpenter writes:
On 2007-04-11 10:08, Simon Josefsson wrote:
What typically happens in practice, among good-faith
practitioners, is that there won't be any GPL (or Apache, or
Mozilla, or ...) implementation of the patented technology at
all, because the
On Wed, 11 Apr 2007, Jari Arkko wrote:
Do you have examples of licenses/IPR declarations that work better with
GPL and other forms of open source? Something for Mark and the rest
of us to use as a model, perhaps?
A recent slap given by Apache to Sun
Simon,
I am working on a document with guidelines for free standards in the
Great!
IETF, and I have written the following regarding patents. Much of the
material came from this thread. I have not yet discussed this
document in the free software community (which I intend to do before
Simon,
4.3. Example License Text
Here is a simplistic patent license that would grant third parties
the necessary rights in order to use it in free software.
X grants a worldwide, non-exclusive, fully-paid,
perpetual, royaltee-free patent license to
On 2007-04-11 11:34, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:
Just one comment:
Brian E Carpenter writes:
On 2007-04-11 10:08, Simon Josefsson wrote:
What typically happens in practice, among good-faith
practitioners, is that there won't be any GPL (or Apache, or
Mozilla, or ...) implementation of
Jari Arkko [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ok. But let me clarify my question. I was specifically after running
code that
has worked well in some case, and not so much specific new text. (Running
code would show that at least some open source project was OK with the
license and that at least some
On Wed, Apr 11, 2007 at 10:27:31AM +0200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
1) You seem to assume that GPL implementers would violate the patent
license by redistributing their code without sending a postcard.
In order words, your question assumes and implies bad-faith amongst
GPL
Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 2007-04-11 11:34, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:
Just one comment:
Brian E Carpenter writes:
On 2007-04-11 10:08, Simon Josefsson wrote:
What typically happens in practice, among good-faith
practitioners, is that there won't be any GPL (or Apache,
Ted,
Well, if IPR owners don't actually care, why are they asking people to
send a postcard? It would seem to be an unnecessary administrative
burden for the IPR owners, yes?
My assumption is that they care if the party that fails to send
a postcard is one of their competitors. That's what
On 04/11/2007 05:22 AM, Simon Josefsson wrote:
I am working on a document with guidelines for free standards in the
IETF
Please don't use free standards this way. The IETF produces free
standards. Some of those standards have IPR licenses that you don't
like.
Scott W Brim [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 04/11/2007 05:22 AM, Simon Josefsson wrote:
I am working on a document with guidelines for free standards in the
IETF
Please don't use free standards this way. The IETF produces free
standards.
According to what definition of 'free standards'?
On Wed, Apr 11, 2007 at 01:54:53PM +0200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Well, if IPR owners don't actually care, why are they asking people to
send a postcard? It would seem to be an unnecessary administrative
burden for the IPR owners, yes?
My assumption is that they care if the party that
On Wed, Apr 11, 2007 at 01:54:53PM +0200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Ted,
Well, if IPR owners don't actually care, why are they asking people to
send a postcard? It would seem to be an unnecessary administrative
burden for the IPR owners, yes?
My assumption is that they care if the party
On Wed, Apr 11, 2007 at 01:54:53PM +0200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Ted,
Well, if IPR owners don't actually care, why are they asking people to
send a postcard? It would seem to be an unnecessary administrative
burden for the IPR owners, yes?
My assumption is that they care if the party
Hello;
On Apr 11, 2007, at 9:33 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Apr 11, 2007 at 01:54:53PM +0200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Ted,
Well, if IPR owners don't actually care, why are they asking
people to
send a postcard? It would seem to be an unnecessary administrative
burden for the
On Apr 11, 2007, at 4:54 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Ted,
Well, if IPR owners don't actually care, why are they asking
people to
send a postcard? It would seem to be an unnecessary administrative
burden for the IPR owners, yes?
My assumption is that they care if the party that fails to
Jari Arkko wrote:
Simon,
Do you have examples of licenses/IPR declarations that work better with
GPL and other forms of open source? Something for Mark and the rest
of us to use as a model, perhaps?
Non-assert works well...
On Wednesday, April 11, 2007 11:16:30 AM +0200 Simon Josefsson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The assumption is false: the goal of free software is not to make the
Internet work better.
The assumption is not false. The goal of the IETF is to make the Internet
work better. I assume Brian
On Wednesday, April 11, 2007 11:34:42 AM -0400 Jeffrey Hutzelman
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For the record, I think your concerns about this particular license are
overstated. Neither this patent license nor the open-source software
licenses you quote are as buggy as you seem to think they
--On Wednesday, 11 April, 2007 09:43 -0400 Theodore Tso
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Apr 11, 2007 at 01:54:53PM +0200, Brian E Carpenter
wrote:
...
My assumption is that they care if the party that fails to
send a postcard is one of their competitors. That's what the
defensive clauses
Ted, jumping ahead a little bit, how much of your concern would
be eliminated if that entry in the template said Royalty Free
and RAND (or RAND and Royalty Free), rather than just RF? I
agree that RF and totally unreasonable is a possible case, but
am trying to understand whether we have
On Wed, Apr 11, 2007 at 01:24:02PM -0400, John C Klensin wrote:
Ted, jumping ahead a little bit, how much of your concern would
be eliminated if that entry in the template said Royalty Free
and RAND (or RAND and Royalty Free), rather than just RF? I
agree that RF and totally unreasonable is a
On Wed, 11 Apr 2007, Theodore Tso wrote:
...
Unlike some OSS advocates, I don't feel a particular need to to
require a patent license which is valid for any field of endeavor;
just the essential claims necessary to implement an IETF standard is
IMHO sufficient (realistically I doubt many IPR
Dean:
I'm still not clear on a few things:
-- When did Russ Housley learn of the Patent Filing?
I was aware that Mark Brown was working on a patent; however, I did
not begin working with him until after his provisional patent
application was filed. I did not see the claims until the
Dean:
I always recuse myself from IESG evaluation of a document for which I
am an author. You will find this to be the normal practice for all
IESG members.
I have no financial interest in PedPhone Security or the patent
filing. I provided consulting services to RedPhone Security; it was
]; ietf@ietf.org; iesg@ietf.org
Sent: Monday, April 09, 2007 6:35 AM
Subject: RE: Withdrawal of Approval and Second Last Call:
draft-housley-tls-authz-extns
Dean:
I always recuse myself from IESG evaluation of a document for which
I am an author. You will find this to be the normal practice
Russ == Russ Housley [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Russ Dean: I always recuse myself from IESG evaluation of a
Russ document for which I am an author. You will find this to be
Russ the normal practice for all IESG members.
Russ, Dean, Todd and others. Might I suggest that this part of
are refused???
Todd Glassey
- Original Message - From: Russ Housley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Dean Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Mark Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Friday, April 06, 2007 2:37 PM
Subject: RE: Withdrawal of Approval and Second Last Call:
draft-housley-tls-authz-extns
Simon,
You observed:
Normal IPR disclosure process is to alert the IETF community via
the IETF
website that a patent has been filed. I mistakenly thought that
adding the
boilerplate IPR statement at the top of the ID was sufficient to
say what
needed to be said. However, I don't
Dean == Dean Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Dean On Mon, 2 Apr 2007, Sam Hartman wrote:
The IETf learned of Brown's patent application on 2006-11-29.
Dean Can you elaborate? From whom or what source did the IETF
Dean learn of the application?
The IETF learned through an
Harald,
I want to apologize again for screwing up the IPR disclosure process.
Normal IPR disclosure process is to alert the IETF community via the IETF
website that a patent has been filed. I mistakenly thought that adding the
boilerplate IPR statement at the top of the ID was sufficient to
--On 29. mars 2007 11:50 -0500 Mark Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Simon,
I filed for patent (Jan and Sep 2005) and later promoted TLS authz (Feb
2006) in good faith. It is possible that the patent claims can be read
more broadly than I expected, but that's a fairly detailed and unresolved
On 4 apr 2007, at 00.45, Mark Brown wrote:
Harald,
I want to apologize again for screwing up the IPR disclosure process.
Normal IPR disclosure process is to alert the IETF community via
the IETF
website that a patent has been filed. I mistakenly thought that
adding the
boilerplate IPR
Thanks Mark - this makes it clear that we need to work on our information
materials, to make it clear to people what the requirement is.
BTW, RFC 3979 doesn't make a difference between published and unpublished
applications - both require a disclosure. Section 6.4.1 describes how to
refer to
Hi, Dean.
First, with your permission I'd like to forward your comments to the
ietf list. This is not a promise or invitation to forward future
comments, but you have made comments on an issue that the community
rather than the IESG decides and for your comments to be considered
they need to be
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 10:12 AM
To: Sam Hartman
Cc: ietf@ietf.org; iesg@ietf.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Withdrawal of Approval and Second Last Call: draft-housley-
tls-authz-extns
Sam Hartman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Simon == Simon
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 10:12 AM
To: Sam Hartman
Cc: ietf@ietf.org; iesg@ietf.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Withdrawal of Approval and Second Last Call: draft-housley-
tls-authz-extns
Sam Hartman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Simon == Simon Josefsson [EMAIL
On 03/30/2007 13:56 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
For whatever it is worth, I think we need to step carefully
around the distinction Paul makes above: there are almost
certainly circumstances in which we should accept a broader
grant of rights conditional on standardization and a narrower
one if
--On Saturday, 31 March, 2007 08:49 -0400 Scott W Brim
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 03/30/2007 13:56 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
For whatever it is worth, I think we need to step carefully
around the distinction Paul makes above: there are almost
certainly circumstances in which we should
Jeff,
As for informational vs an independent submission, I think there is a
factor to be considered. It seems to me that an informational IETF
document is a fine way to say this is a good idea, and we think this
is the right way to do FOO, but we can't actually recommend it (for
whatever
On 2007-03-31 17:15, Eliot Lear wrote:
Jeff,
As for informational vs an independent submission, I think there is a
factor to be considered. It seems to me that an informational IETF
document is a fine way to say this is a good idea, and we think this
is the right way to do FOO, but we can't
-
From: Simon Josefsson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 10:12 AM
To: Sam Hartman
Cc: ietf@ietf.org; iesg@ietf.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Withdrawal of Approval and Second Last Call: draft-housley-
tls-authz-extns
Sam Hartman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
At 11:50 AM -0500 3/29/07, Mark Brown wrote:
I have experienced some surprises when mixing law and Internet standards.
To try to avoid surprises, I have hired IPR attorneys at two different firms
to review my draft which proposes a royalty-free license grant. I expect
any resulting license will
--On Friday, 30 March, 2007 10:12 -0700 Paul Hoffman
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 11:50 AM -0500 3/29/07, Mark Brown wrote:
I have experienced some surprises when mixing law and
Internet standards. To try to avoid surprises, I have hired
IPR attorneys at two different firms to review my
Just following onto John's note.
For whatever it is worth, I think we need to step carefully
around the distinction Paul makes above: there are almost
certainly circumstances in which we should accept a broader
grant of rights conditional on standardization and a narrower
one if the technology
On Friday, March 30, 2007 10:12:14 AM -0700 Paul Hoffman
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 11:50 AM -0500 3/29/07, Mark Brown wrote:
I have experienced some surprises when mixing law and Internet standards.
To try to avoid surprises, I have hired IPR attorneys at two different
firms to review my
John == John C Klensin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
John I also do not believe that it is appropriate to view
John Informational publication as some sort of consolation prize.
John If the community, and the IESG, conclude that the document
John and its technology should be
Folks, we didn't get a lot of support expressed in the second last
call. If I were making a consensus call today I'd say we do not have
consensus to publish draft-housley-tls-authz-extns as a proposed
standard given the IPR claims against it.
However Russ pointed out to me that it may be that
I don't care strongly about the standards track status. However,
speaking as implementer of the protocol: If the document ends up as
informational or experimental, I request that we make an exception and
allow the protocol to use the already allocated IANA protocol
constants. That will avoid
Sam Hartman wrote:
I propose to conduct a last call to confirm that we don't
have consensus to publish as a proposed standard. Does
this seem like the right approach to folks?
Did that ever happen before ? A Last Call trying to get
consensus that there's no consensus.
If silence means
Simon == Simon Josefsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Simon I don't care strongly about the standards track status.
Simon However, speaking as implementer of the protocol: If the
Simon document ends up as informational or experimental, I
Simon request that we make an exception and
On Thu Mar 29 15:39:07 2007, Frank Ellermann wrote:
Sam Hartman wrote:
I propose to conduct a last call to confirm that we don't
have consensus to publish as a proposed standard. Does
this seem like the right approach to folks?
Did that ever happen before ? A Last Call trying to get
I think that the current texts would merit some additional work.
In particular to permit authorisation statements and to clarify
that how which client acts as a proxy for someone else.
I mentioned the first part to the authors some time ago, but
they didn't buy the idea.
Sam Hartman wrote:
Sam Hartman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Simon == Simon Josefsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Simon I don't care strongly about the standards track status.
Simon However, speaking as implementer of the protocol: If the
Simon document ends up as informational or experimental, I
At 10:06 AM -0400 3/29/07, Sam Hartman wrote:
Folks, we didn't get a lot of support expressed in the second last
call. If I were making a consensus call today I'd say we do not have
consensus to publish draft-housley-tls-authz-extns as a proposed
standard given the IPR claims against it.
However
Ted == Ted Hardie [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ted I thought Eric Rescorla and Pasi Eronen had suggested that
Ted this document be evaluated by the TLS working group and the
Ted IPR terms evaluated there. I have that suggestion in an
Ted email thread on the main IETF list, started
At 1:05 PM -0400 3/29/07, Sam Hartman wrote:
The problem is that this work is outside the charter of the TLS
working group. So, I don't think asking them to take on the document
would be appropriate.
I also don't think rechartering TLS for this purpose would be appropriate.
It is actually fairly
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 17:12:18 +0200
Simon Josefsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The community needs to evaluate patent claims, and preferably reach
conservative agreement (rough consensus is not good enough) on whether
we should care about a particular patent or not. Input to that
community
Ted == Ted Hardie [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ted At 1:05 PM -0400 3/29/07, Sam Hartman wrote:
The problem is that this work is outside the charter of the TLS
working group. So, I don't think asking them to take on the
document would be appropriate. I also don't think
At 4:25 PM -0400 3/29/07, Sam Hartman wrote:
Ted, I'd like to do this. However I could use some help figuring out
exactly what question I'm asking the TLS working group to provide
advice on. I guess it could be as simple as Do you think
draft-housley-tls-authz-extns is worth publishing on the
Ted == Ted Hardie [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ted At 4:25 PM -0400 3/29/07, Sam Hartman wrote:
Ted, I'd like to do this. However I could use some help
figuring out exactly what question I'm asking the TLS working
group to provide advice on. I guess it could be as simple as
On Tuesday 27 February 2007 08:53, IESG Secretary wrote:
The IESG is considering re-approving this draft with knowledge of the
IPR disclosure from Redphone Security. The IESG solicits final
comments on whether the IETF community has consensus to publish
draft-housley-tls-authz-extns as a
Eric Rescorla has agreed to deal with the third party disclosure on my
behalf.
thanks for all the volunteers of help.
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Folks, in addition to the IPR disclosure that triggered this second
last call, I've received mail from an interested party that IPR held
by a third party who as far as we know was not involved in IETF
discussions of this draft may apply to the draft. While the
interested party was willing to
On June 27, 2006, the IESG approved Transport Layer Security (TLS)
Authorization Extensions, (draft-housley-tls-authz-extns) as a
proposed standard. On November 29, 2006, Redphone Security (with whom
Mark Brown, a co-author of the draft is affiliated) filed IETF IPR
disclosure 767. The disclosure
81 matches
Mail list logo
