Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2007 14:11:15 -0400 (EDT)
From: Dean Anderson <dean@av8.com>
To: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
Cc: Mark Brown <mark@redphonesecurity.com>, 'Simon Josefsson' <simon@josefsson.org>,
'Sam Hartman' <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu>, Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de>,
Dave Cridland <dave@cridland.net>, Peter Sylvester <Peter.Sylvester@edelweb.fr>,
Ted Hardie <hardie@qualcomm.com>, Steven M. Bellovin <smb@cs.columbia.edu>,
Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>, John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>,
Jeffrey Hutzelman <jhutz@cmu.edu>, Spencer Dawkins <spencer@mcsr-labs.org>,
Scott W Brim <swb@employees.org>, Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>,
Brian E Carpenter <brc@zurich.ibm.com>, ietf@ietf.org, iesg@ietf.org
Subject: RE: Withdrawal of Approval and Second Last Call: draft-housley-tls-authz-extns
I'm still not clear on a few things:
-- When did Russ Housley learn of the Patent Filing?
-- How did the IESG learn of this filing?
-- What was Housley's role in the IESG support of Bellovin's
misrepresentation of IPR policy, particularly the period between roughly
September 2005 and January 2006?
I would like to review the IESG list archive, preferably at the office
of a conveniently close IESG member. Sam Hartman's office at MIT is
conveniently close. Sam, how is Tuesday afternoon?
--Dean
On Tue, 3 Apr 2007, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
>
>
> --On 29. mars 2007 11:50 -0500 Mark Brown <mark@redphonesecurity.com>
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
> > legal question. I am working diligently to -- let me speak carefully
--
> > explore if and how I can make a royalty free license grant to ensure
that
> > promoting TLS authz continues to be an act in good faith, while still
> > protecting a way for my company to make money on its IPR.
>
> Mark,
>
> trying to understand your statement above:
> When you submitted draft-housley-00, August 2006, your submission included
> the text:
>
> By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
> applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
> have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
> aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
>
> You were clearly aware of your own patent filing.
>
> The Redphone IPR statement,
> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/ipr_detail_show.cgi?ipr_id=765>,
was
> filed on November 28, 2007; I cannot see any earlier filing in your name.
>
> I can reconcile those two things with your assurance of good faith in
> multiple ways:
>
> - You were not aware that section 6.2.1 of BCP 79 requires a disclosure "as
> soon as reasonably possible". In this case, we need to update the
> informational material we provide to people who might submit I-Ds.
> - You were of the opinion that 15 months after the I-D filing was "as
soon
> as reasonably possible". In this case, we need to have an IETF debate
on
> whether we think this is a reasonable assessment, and document the result
> of that discussion.
> - You were of the opinion that the patent applications were certainly not
> applicable to the specification in that draft, but changed your opinion
> later.
> - There is some logic here that I do not yet grasp, and I need further
> explanation.
>
> Rather than speculating about which of the alternatives above is true, I
> prefer to ask.
> Take care,
>
> Harald Alvestrand
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>
>
--
Av8 Internet Prepared to pay a premium for better service?
www.av8.net faster, more reliable, better service
617 344 9000