On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 17:54:23 -0700 (PDT)
"Dan Harkins" <dharkins@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> If specification of patented algorithms and drafts subject to IPR
> disclosure is not enough to knock a draft of the Standards Track then
> I don't know why FUD about a possible patent _maybe_ existing that
> _might_ apply is.
I'm no longer an AD, but if I were, I'd propose a policy that the IESG
automatically disregard any objection to a spec on the grounds that it
uses a patented protocol.
Folks, the IETF, via the IPR WG (of which I used to be co-chair)
explicitly declined to adopt that standard. The policy under which it
operates, *by IETF consensus*, is that the WG should decide for any
given document if the (vast) disadvantages of an encumbered technology
are outweighed by the abilities it grants. I see no reason whatsoever
to even consider a generic objection.; that's not what our explicit
I should note that I have no opinions on the merits of this draft
compared with an EKE-based alternative, though I should also note that
(a) I'm the coinventor of EKE, and (b) as far as I know the US patent
on EKE (5,241,599) doesn't expire until October 1, 2011.
--Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
Ietf mailing list