Subject: [TLS] Summary of IPR discussion on draft-ietf-tls-extractor-05

From: "Joseph Salowey (jsalowey)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 08:02:36 -0700

I haven't heard anyone dispute that the current statement referenced in
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1004/ pertains to the use of the draft
with ECC technology.  I have heard concern that there may be IPR claims
that may not be disclosed by Certicom or another party.  However, this
is always the case and no new evidence of the existence of additional
claims has been brought forth.  My recommendation is to move forward
with publishing the draft on standards track.  Here is a what I suggest
should go in the PROTO write-up

   (1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or 
          issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director 
          and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he 
          or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or

          has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any 
          event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated 
          that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those 
          concerns here. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document 
          been filed? If so, please include a reference to the 
          disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on 
          this issue. 

The document shepherd has no concerns with the document.  There is an
IPR disclosure that lists this document:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1004/.  There has been some discussion
of this disclosure on the TLS list.  In general the disclosure only
discusses the use of the draft with ECC technology.  Some members are
worried that this leaves a loop hole for later assertions to be made by
the owner of the #1004 disclosure or that another third party may try to
assert claims.   No new evidence about these existence of additional
claims has been provided to the working group so the document shepherd
has decided to move forward with progressing the draft on standards
track.

---

From: Matthew Campagna <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 11:41:13 -0400

In hopes of clarifying,

It is our intention to foster broad adoption of ECC technology.  The grant is meant to cover any necessary Certicom patents and patent applications to implement RFC 4492, RFC 5289 or the draft-rescorla-tls-suiteb when used with draft-ietf-tls-extractor.  It is not making any statement to the draft-ietf-tls-extractor when used absent of these three cipher suites.

Regards,
   Matt

Matthew Campagna
Director, Certicom Research
Office: 203.894.9777 Main: 905.507.4220 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
> Joseph Salowey (jsalowey)
> Sent: Friday, May 15, 2009 11:03 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [TLS] Summary of IPR discussion on draft-ietf-tls-extractor-05
> 
> _______________________________________________
> TLS mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls

---

From: "Blumenthal, Uri" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 11:49:11 -0400

Crisp, precise and to the point. Thank you!

My objections are withdrawn.

On 5/15/09  11:41 , "Matthew Campagna" <[email-masked]> wrote:

In hopes of clarifying,

Regards,
   Matt

Matthew Campagna

--
Regards,
Uri
<Disclaimer>

---

From: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 16 May 2009 15:49:10 +0200

> In hopes of clarifying,

Hi.  I appreciate this, thanks for joining the discussion.

> It is our intention to foster broad adoption of ECC technology.  The
> grant is meant to cover any necessary Certicom patents and patent
> applications to implement RFC 4492, RFC 5289 or the
> draft-rescorla-tls-suiteb when used with draft-ietf-tls-extractor.  It
> is not making any statement to the draft-ietf-tls-extractor when used
> absent of these three cipher suites.

If you have patents that covers tls-extractor, which you claim in the
#1004 filing, it would help to understand if and how you believe those
patents apply to non-ECC cipher suites.  Thus, what I'm looking for is a
statement on using tls-extractor without those three cipher suites.

Absent such a statement, it seems reasonable to assume that anything is
possible, including that you believe your patents cover the non-ECC
situation, and that you will enforce them.

/Simon

---

From: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 16 May 2009 16:05:57 +0200

"Joseph Salowey (jsalowey)" <[email-masked]> writes:

> with ECC technology.

That is what I have been disputing.  My reasoning is as follows:

1) The #1004 disclosure indicates that Certicom has patents that covers
the tls-extractor document.

2) The PDF says that for use with ECC, Certicom will grant a particular
license.  As far as I understand, the conditions in that license is one
reason the IETF have published ECC related documents as Informational
rather than on the Standards Track.  Other recent cipher suites, such as
RFC 5288, is on the Standards Track.

3) The PDF says nothing about what Certicom's patents on tls-extractor
means for non-ECC situations.

It would be great if Matthew Campagna can clarify 3) for us.

To further clarify my position:

If the patent owner confirms that they do not believe their patents
covers non-ECC situations, I would no longer oppose publication of
tls-extractor on the Standards Track.

As long as the patent owner prevents us from understanding this aspect,
I would continue to oppose publication.

/Simon