Subject: Re: [TLS] Last Call: draft-ietf-tls-extractor (Keying Material Exporters for Transport Layer Security (TLS)) to Proposed Standard

From: Dean Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 10:05:06 -0400 (EDT)

Ned and Stephen,

If you mean the recent message traffic about the 'intention to remove'
extractor from a list of patented documents, that hasn't happened so far
and an 'intention to remove' doesn't mean it isn't patented. It is
possible that Certicom can later say it was a misunderstanding and that
the official documents were correct. As evidence of their view, they
have the official documents.  As evidence of your view, you have an
unofficial and vague email message apparently contrary to the official
documents, and you will have to argue you based your decision on the
unofficial and vague message rather than the official IPR Disclosures.  
I think one cannot get to a Qualcomm v. Broadcomm finding under such
circumstances.

So, if your objection is removed once the patent threat is removed, then
you should wait until the patent threat is actually removed, which
hasn't happened yet.

As the recent discussions about destroying evidence of participation in
bluesheets shows, some people are willing to engage in deceptive
practices, which may obviously include deceiving people about their
intent to assert patent coverage.

		--Dean

On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 [email-masked] wrote:

> > I too support publication of this document as a Standards Track RFC,
> > in light of the salient message traffic of late.
> 
> +1
> 
> 				Ned
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.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

---

From: Stephen Kent <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 20:41:45 -0400

>I think one cannot get to a Qualcomm v. Broadcomm finding under such

I reiterate my support for the cited I-D. period.

Steve