Subject: [tsvwg] IPR Disclosure Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (publ)'s Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-tsvwg-dtls-over-sctp-bis

From: IETF Secretariat <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2021 07:14:18 -0700

Dear Magnus Westerlund, John Preuß Mattsson, Claudio Porfiri, Michael Tüxen:

An IPR disclosure that pertains to your Internet-Draft entitled "Datagram
Transport Layer Security (DTLS) over Stream Control Transmission Protocol
(SCTP)" (draft-ietf-tsvwg-dtls-over-sctp-bis) was submitted to the IETF
Secretariat on 2021-10-13 and has been posted on the "IETF Page of
Intellectual Property Rights Disclosures"
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/5195/). The title of the IPR disclosure is
"Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (publ)'s Statement about IPR related to
draft-ietf-tsvwg-dtls-over-sctp-bis"

Thank you

IETF Secretariat

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2021 22:43:53 +0200

> On 13. Oct 2021, at 16:14, IETF Secretariat <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
Dear WG,

I wanted to let you know that I resigned from being a coauthor of
draft-ietf-tsvwg-dtls-over-sctp-bis.

The reason is the following:
I think is is important to have some implementation experience for
mechanisms described in RFCs. Therefore, I always made sure that
mechanisms that were described in SCTP related documents I was a
co-author of, were implemented when the documents reached the WGLC
state. A lot of this work was done by Randall Stewart or in
cooperation with him using the SCTP implementation in FreeBSD.
I was planning to implement the SCTP related part of this RFC 6083bis
for FreeBSD, but this seems not possible anymore, even for a co-author.

If I would have known the IPR situation earlier, I would most likely not
have agreed to be a coauthor and would not have spent cycles on the document.

In general I don't think that it is a good idea to replace RFC 6083, which
is implemented in OpenSSL and the SCTP implementation of FreeBSD and
Linux, by RFC 6083bis, which can not be implemented by OpenSource projects
anymore. Especially, considering the fact that using DTLS is one of two
mechanisms (IPSec being the other) to secure SCTP traffic.

Best regards
Michael

---

From: Gorry Fairhurst <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2021 11:14:05 +0100

> mechanisms (IPSec being the other) to secure SCTP traffic.
Thanks Michael for letting us know.

I think we need to clarify the intentions of this IPR announcement.

This then alson needs WG consideration, since this current work item 
would seek to replace an existing Standards Track document with one that 
requires consideration of IPR.

Gorry Faiurhurst

(tsvwg co-chair)