RE: [Syslog] Draft-ietf-syslog-transport-tls-01.txt
On Thu, 2006-06-08 at 22:06 +0200, Rainer Gerhards wrote: > Hi, > > I have been told that Huawei patents date back no longer than 2001. This > seems to confirm it: > > http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=2&u > =%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=0&f=S&l=50&d=PG01&s1=HUAWEI&Page > =Next&OS=HUAWEI&RS=HUAWEI > > Also, David said "I believe the applicant is permitted to not disclose > the claims for > eighteen months.". Assuming this holds true, and speaking only of US > patents, this seems to mean that the patent in question can not date > back to later than 2004. > > In contrast, Google has a newsgroup post about syslog-ng and stunnel > from 1999: > > http://groups.google.com/group/comp.security.unix/browse_thread/thread/d > 125f044c5f8ba4a/6c87c15ddff26516?lnk=st&q=syslog-ng+stunnel&rnum=118#6c8 > 7c15ddff26516 > > I guess there are many more samples of prior art (e.g. during the > formation of this WG, some texts I wrote myself in 2004, many more > howtows pre-2000 and probably stunnel changelogs and installations). The problem with the prior art quoted above is that the PTO prefers written and/or presented material, e.g. articles in magazines, or papers presented on conferences. Fortunately we have prior art in this category too: this one dates back to 2001, December from Linuxjournal, issue #92: http://linuxjournal.com/article/5476 So yes, the patent could probably be invalidated even if it is granted, however it costs money and needs someone to actually do it (any takers? :) I am somewhat undecided, I try to list the pros and cons whether to continue work on this matter: Pros: - we were working on this for ages now, and a standard is badly needed - Huawei probably needs the patent for its portfolio and does not care less with me, although Cisco might think differently :) Cons: - anyone could be threatened any time, license terms can be terminated and changed at will, even if it is currently reasonable, a patent is valid for _17_ years (yeah, that's 2023) - a granted patent could also mean that software that implements the patent cannot go into Linux distributions (at least to those which take this question seriously). As I see our first priority is to know more about the patent, but as that takes time, we should continue working with minimum effort, in the hope that the patent is not granted, is irrelevant or someone invalidates it. -- Bazsi ___ Syslog mailing list Syslog@lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
Re: separate - Re: [Syslog] Draft-ietf-syslog-transport-tls-01.txt
Hi, OK - I blew it. My apologies to the Working Group and to David for my obvious problem. I had meant that to be an update to Sam only. With sincere apologies, Chris On Fri, 9 Jun 2006, Chris Lonvick wrote: Hi Sam, Please keep this between us for the moment. ___ Syslog mailing list Syslog@lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
separate - Re: [Syslog] Draft-ietf-syslog-transport-tls-01.txt
Hi Sam, Please keep this between us for the moment. On Thu, 8 Jun 2006, Sam Hartman wrote: First, have you looked at the updated IPR disclosure? Yes. The Cisco lawyer who deals with IPR says that he is confused by it. He suggests that I ask for a clarification of what is "based on royalty-free with other reasonable non-discriminations terms and conditions". There are other spelling and grammar problems as well. I figure that if my lawyer is confused by it, I can't ask the WG to go along with it. David says that Huawei wants the license to be easy and painless. I'll attempt to get consensus on that. Right now, some people who have been implementing are a bit hurt thinking that Huawei is claiming everything. I figure that there is a claim, or some claims, in the document and that Huawei is not attempting to cover the entire concept of syslog/tls. However, that is not clear from the disclosure so I'm getting some problems in the WG. If there are specific claims and it comes to light then I may be able to get some more acceptance of the terms. Any advice would be appreciated. You can work on udp and -protocol, and you can even update your milestones to reflect that. You can get as far as sending me a publication request for these documents. However I will not take the documents to the IESG without a security solution. So, I'll wait until it seems clear that there will be WG consensus to actually publish the TLS draft (or something else of your choosing) before I bring -protocol to the IESG. OK. Thanks, Chris ___ Syslog mailing list Syslog@lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
RE: [Syslog] Draft-ietf-syslog-transport-tls-01.txt
Hi, I have been told that Huawei patents date back no longer than 2001. This seems to confirm it: http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=2&u =%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=0&f=S&l=50&d=PG01&s1=HUAWEI&Page =Next&OS=HUAWEI&RS=HUAWEI Also, David said "I believe the applicant is permitted to not disclose the claims for eighteen months.". Assuming this holds true, and speaking only of US patents, this seems to mean that the patent in question can not date back to later than 2004. In contrast, Google has a newsgroup post about syslog-ng and stunnel from 1999: http://groups.google.com/group/comp.security.unix/browse_thread/thread/d 125f044c5f8ba4a/6c87c15ddff26516?lnk=st&q=syslog-ng+stunnel&rnum=118#6c8 7c15ddff26516 I guess there are many more samples of prior art (e.g. during the formation of this WG, some texts I wrote myself in 2004, many more howtows pre-2000 and probably stunnel changelogs and installations). This all brings me to the conclusion that this is not only insane but mostly irrelavant. Of course, someone needs to object the patent if it is awarded (which unfortunately seems to be more than possible). The question is who will do that (and what it costs). But besides that, there should be no problem. What a rotten system the patent system has become... Back to on-topic: I think we can continue with -transport-tls, though I have to admit I am still hesitant to put too much effort into it myself. Probably those claiming rights should also do at least a little work on it ;) Rainer > -Original Message- > From: Chris Lonvick [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 5:27 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [Syslog] Draft-ietf-syslog-transport-tls-01.txt > > Hi, > > On Thu, 8 Jun 2006, Balazs Scheidler wrote: > > On Thu, 2006-06-08 at 09:38 +0200, Rainer Gerhards wrote: > > > >> I think using a patented technology inside a standard will > definitely > >> hinder the acceptance of that standard. Especially if it > is something as > >> trivial as syslog over tls. So my vote is to put this work > on hold until > >> further clarification can be obtained. If that means we'll have no > >> syslog RFC, so be it. That would probably be the better choice... > > > > > > My feelings are about the same. I don't really know the US > patent system > > specifics, how long does it take to have something concrete > about the > > patent? > > > [Minor note: I don't think that we can assume that it is being filed > within the USPTO.] > > It appears to me (and I'm willing to take more input) that > the general > consensus is that an IPR-encumbered syslog/tls document would > not gain > acceptance within the development community. > > I would like to do 2 things at this time: > > 1) I will ask Huawei to update their IPR claim to cover > draft-ietf-syslog-transport-tls-02.txt (the current disclosure only > covers -01.txt) and, if possible, to give us a bit more of a > clue as to > what the IPR covers. Specifically from RFC 3979, Section 6.4.1: > In addition, if the IETF Document includes multiple > parts and it is not reasonably apparent which part of such IETF > Document is alleged to be Covered by the IPR in question, it is > helpful if the discloser identifies the sections of the > IETF Document > that are alleged to be so Covered. > I believe that Hauwei does not need to fully disclose their IPR claim > but a clue would be helpful. I think that the section above > was written > that way so that it could be possible to remove or modify a > section so > that the document would no longer be covered by a claim. I > don't know > that this is possible in this case but I'd like to explore > that option. > > 2) I will ask our Advisor to give us some guidance on this. (Sam is > cc'd.) We agreed to a tight timeline for our deliverables without > considering that we would get hung up on this. A > recommendation has been > made on the WG list that we proceed with syslog-transport-udp and > syslog-protocol while we see what becomes of the IPR claim of > syslog-transport-tls. We CAN submit syslog-transport-tls in a timely > fashion, as per our Charter, but I fear that it would not be > accepted or > deployed by the community until the IPR issue is resolved. > Moving forward > with the other two IDs would keep our momentum going and we > could address > the issue of the IPR as soon as we can. > > Thanks, > Chris > > ___ > Syslog mailing list > Syslog@lists.ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog > ___ Syslog mailing list Syslog@lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
RE: [Syslog] Draft-ietf-syslog-transport-tls-01.txt
FWIW: I agree with Chris proposal and intended course of action. Rainer > -Original Message- > From: Chris Lonvick [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 5:27 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [Syslog] Draft-ietf-syslog-transport-tls-01.txt > > Hi, > > On Thu, 8 Jun 2006, Balazs Scheidler wrote: > > On Thu, 2006-06-08 at 09:38 +0200, Rainer Gerhards wrote: > > > >> I think using a patented technology inside a standard will > definitely > >> hinder the acceptance of that standard. Especially if it > is something as > >> trivial as syslog over tls. So my vote is to put this work > on hold until > >> further clarification can be obtained. If that means we'll have no > >> syslog RFC, so be it. That would probably be the better choice... > > > > > > My feelings are about the same. I don't really know the US > patent system > > specifics, how long does it take to have something concrete > about the > > patent? > > > [Minor note: I don't think that we can assume that it is being filed > within the USPTO.] > > It appears to me (and I'm willing to take more input) that > the general > consensus is that an IPR-encumbered syslog/tls document would > not gain > acceptance within the development community. > > I would like to do 2 things at this time: > > 1) I will ask Huawei to update their IPR claim to cover > draft-ietf-syslog-transport-tls-02.txt (the current disclosure only > covers -01.txt) and, if possible, to give us a bit more of a > clue as to > what the IPR covers. Specifically from RFC 3979, Section 6.4.1: > In addition, if the IETF Document includes multiple > parts and it is not reasonably apparent which part of such IETF > Document is alleged to be Covered by the IPR in question, it is > helpful if the discloser identifies the sections of the > IETF Document > that are alleged to be so Covered. > I believe that Hauwei does not need to fully disclose their IPR claim > but a clue would be helpful. I think that the section above > was written > that way so that it could be possible to remove or modify a > section so > that the document would no longer be covered by a claim. I > don't know > that this is possible in this case but I'd like to explore > that option. > > 2) I will ask our Advisor to give us some guidance on this. (Sam is > cc'd.) We agreed to a tight timeline for our deliverables without > considering that we would get hung up on this. A > recommendation has been > made on the WG list that we proceed with syslog-transport-udp and > syslog-protocol while we see what becomes of the IPR claim of > syslog-transport-tls. We CAN submit syslog-transport-tls in a timely > fashion, as per our Charter, but I fear that it would not be > accepted or > deployed by the community until the IPR issue is resolved. > Moving forward > with the other two IDs would keep our momentum going and we > could address > the issue of the IPR as soon as we can. > > Thanks, > Chris > > ___ > Syslog mailing list > Syslog@lists.ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog > ___ Syslog mailing list Syslog@lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
Re: [Syslog] Draft-ietf-syslog-transport-tls-01.txt
First, have you looked at the updated IPR disclosure? You can work on udp and -protocol, and you can even update your milestones to reflect that. You can get as far as sending me a publication request for these documents. However I will not take the documents to the IESG without a security solution. So, I'll wait until it seems clear that there will be WG consensus to actually publish the TLS draft (or something else of your choosing) before I bring -protocol to the IESG. ___ Syslog mailing list Syslog@lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
RE: [Syslog] Draft-ietf-syslog-transport-tls-01.txt
Anton,
I see your point. But remember that the IESG forced us to provide a
secure transport, which IMHO will be the most-violated part of
syslog-protocol once it is a RFC (meaning that -prototocol and
-transport-udp will be implemented but not -tls). SSH still seems to be
not a good option in my point of view. I guess we are stuck...
Given my assumption on the expected seldom implementation of -tls, we
could of course go ahead and put this through with as few effort as
possible, just to fulfil the formal requirement of the IESG...
Rainer
> -Original Message-
> From: Anton Okmianski (aokmians) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 4:19 PM
> To: Balazs Scheidler; Rainer Gerhards
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [Syslog] Draft-ietf-syslog-transport-tls-01.txt
>
> I don't agree with putting all work on hold. Syslog-protocol
> and syslog-transport-udp still make sense to standardize. And
> we could explore syslog-transport-ssh, possibly soliciting
> input from IPR holders first.
>
> Thanks,
> Anton.
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Balazs Scheidler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 8:39 AM
> > To: Rainer Gerhards
> > Cc: Anton Okmianski (aokmians); [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: RE: [Syslog] Draft-ietf-syslog-transport-tls-01.txt
> >
> > On Thu, 2006-06-08 at 09:38 +0200, Rainer Gerhards wrote:
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > I agree with Anton on all important issues. I've read the
> > IPR claim and
> > > what disturbs me the most is "unpublished pending patent
> > application".
> > > This sounds like someone took what we have been discussing (and is
> > > widely deployed), brought it to a lawyer and is now trying
> > to make some
> > > patent out of it. This smells very bad.
> > >
> > > Without knowing what exactly is claimed to be invented by
> > the claimer, I
> > > can not judge the effect it will have on my work. Anyhow, I do not
> > > intend to invest any of my time into something that
> > somebody else claims
> > > exclusive rights too. If I did, I'd end up with the need to "pay"
> > > (money-wise or other) for the right to use my own work.
> > Would I be smart
> > > if I did that? ;)
> > >
> > > The licensing terms themselves sound fair (but are vague
> > enough to do
> > > so...). My root concern is that there is nothing that has
> > been invented
> > > by that party. I am still waiting for someone to patent the
> > use of the
> > > letter "a" ("@" has been tried AFIK)...
> > >
> > > I think using a patented technology inside a standard will
> > definitely
> > > hinder the acceptance of that standard. Especially if it is
> > something as
> > > trivial as syslog over tls. So my vote is to put this work
> > on hold until
> > > further clarification can be obtained. If that means we'll have no
> > > syslog RFC, so be it. That would probably be the better choice...
> >
> > My feelings are about the same. I don't really know the US
> > patent system
> > specifics, how long does it take to have something concrete
> about the
> > patent?
> >
> > --
> > Bazsi
> >
>
___
Syslog mailing list
Syslog@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
RE: [Syslog] Draft-ietf-syslog-transport-tls-01.txt
Hi, On Thu, 8 Jun 2006, Balazs Scheidler wrote: On Thu, 2006-06-08 at 09:38 +0200, Rainer Gerhards wrote: I think using a patented technology inside a standard will definitely hinder the acceptance of that standard. Especially if it is something as trivial as syslog over tls. So my vote is to put this work on hold until further clarification can be obtained. If that means we'll have no syslog RFC, so be it. That would probably be the better choice... My feelings are about the same. I don't really know the US patent system specifics, how long does it take to have something concrete about the patent? [Minor note: I don't think that we can assume that it is being filed within the USPTO.] It appears to me (and I'm willing to take more input) that the general consensus is that an IPR-encumbered syslog/tls document would not gain acceptance within the development community. I would like to do 2 things at this time: 1) I will ask Huawei to update their IPR claim to cover draft-ietf-syslog-transport-tls-02.txt (the current disclosure only covers -01.txt) and, if possible, to give us a bit more of a clue as to what the IPR covers. Specifically from RFC 3979, Section 6.4.1: In addition, if the IETF Document includes multiple parts and it is not reasonably apparent which part of such IETF Document is alleged to be Covered by the IPR in question, it is helpful if the discloser identifies the sections of the IETF Document that are alleged to be so Covered. I believe that Hauwei does not need to fully disclose their IPR claim but a clue would be helpful. I think that the section above was written that way so that it could be possible to remove or modify a section so that the document would no longer be covered by a claim. I don't know that this is possible in this case but I'd like to explore that option. 2) I will ask our Advisor to give us some guidance on this. (Sam is cc'd.) We agreed to a tight timeline for our deliverables without considering that we would get hung up on this. A recommendation has been made on the WG list that we proceed with syslog-transport-udp and syslog-protocol while we see what becomes of the IPR claim of syslog-transport-tls. We CAN submit syslog-transport-tls in a timely fashion, as per our Charter, but I fear that it would not be accepted or deployed by the community until the IPR issue is resolved. Moving forward with the other two IDs would keep our momentum going and we could address the issue of the IPR as soon as we can. Thanks, Chris ___ Syslog mailing list Syslog@lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
Re: [Syslog] Draft-ietf-syslog-transport-tls-01.txt
I'd vote to go forward with publication to standard to bring this out into the open. This is probably one the sillies patents out and just shows how fundamentally flawed the system really is. -- Darren J Moffat ___ Syslog mailing list Syslog@lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
RE: [Syslog] Draft-ietf-syslog-transport-tls-01.txt
Hi,
I am staying out of the debate, but I can answer Balzs's question
based on my experiences.
In the US patent system, it takes on the order of three to five years
for a patent to be granted.
I believe the applicant is permitted to not disclose the claims for
eighteen months.
But I am not a lawyer, so your mileage may vary.
dbh
> -Original Message-
> From: Balazs Scheidler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 8:39 AM
> To: Rainer Gerhards
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [Syslog] Draft-ietf-syslog-transport-tls-01.txt
>
> On Thu, 2006-06-08 at 09:38 +0200, Rainer Gerhards wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I agree with Anton on all important issues. I've read the
> IPR claim and
> > what disturbs me the most is "unpublished pending patent
> application".
> > This sounds like someone took what we have been discussing (and is
> > widely deployed), brought it to a lawyer and is now trying
> to make some
> > patent out of it. This smells very bad.
> >
> > Without knowing what exactly is claimed to be invented by
> the claimer, I
> > can not judge the effect it will have on my work. Anyhow, I do not
> > intend to invest any of my time into something that
> somebody else claims
> > exclusive rights too. If I did, I'd end up with the need to "pay"
> > (money-wise or other) for the right to use my own work.
> Would I be smart
> > if I did that? ;)
> >
> > The licensing terms themselves sound fair (but are vague
> enough to do
> > so...). My root concern is that there is nothing that has
> been invented
> > by that party. I am still waiting for someone to patent the
> use of the
> > letter "a" ("@" has been tried AFIK)...
> >
> > I think using a patented technology inside a standard will
> definitely
> > hinder the acceptance of that standard. Especially if it is
> something as
> > trivial as syslog over tls. So my vote is to put this work
> on hold until
> > further clarification can be obtained. If that means we'll have no
> > syslog RFC, so be it. That would probably be the better choice...
>
> My feelings are about the same. I don't really know the US
> patent system
> specifics, how long does it take to have something concrete about
the
> patent?
>
> --
> Bazsi
>
>
> ___
> Syslog mailing list
> Syslog@lists.ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
>
___
Syslog mailing list
Syslog@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
RE: [Syslog] Draft-ietf-syslog-transport-tls-01.txt
Is the expectation that all 3 (protocol, transport-udp and transport-secure)
MUST be delivered together or none at all? Can't we do the first two first
while accommodating pluggable transports as we did? Then, figure out the
secure one. By that time the claims of the pending unpublished patent may be
known.
Thanks,
Anton.
> -Original Message-
> From: Rainer Gerhards [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 10:36 AM
> To: Anton Okmianski (aokmians); Balazs Scheidler
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [Syslog] Draft-ietf-syslog-transport-tls-01.txt
>
> Anton,
>
> I see your point. But remember that the IESG forced us to provide a
> secure transport, which IMHO will be the most-violated part of
> syslog-protocol once it is a RFC (meaning that -prototocol and
> -transport-udp will be implemented but not -tls). SSH still
> seems to be
> not a good option in my point of view. I guess we are stuck...
>
> Given my assumption on the expected seldom implementation of -tls, we
> could of course go ahead and put this through with as few effort as
> possible, just to fulfil the formal requirement of the IESG...
>
> Rainer
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Anton Okmianski (aokmians) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 4:19 PM
> > To: Balazs Scheidler; Rainer Gerhards
> > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: RE: [Syslog] Draft-ietf-syslog-transport-tls-01.txt
> >
> > I don't agree with putting all work on hold. Syslog-protocol
> > and syslog-transport-udp still make sense to standardize. And
> > we could explore syslog-transport-ssh, possibly soliciting
> > input from IPR holders first.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Anton.
> >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Balazs Scheidler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 8:39 AM
> > > To: Rainer Gerhards
> > > Cc: Anton Okmianski (aokmians); [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Subject: RE: [Syslog] Draft-ietf-syslog-transport-tls-01.txt
> > >
> > > On Thu, 2006-06-08 at 09:38 +0200, Rainer Gerhards wrote:
> > > > Hi all,
> > > >
> > > > I agree with Anton on all important issues. I've read the
> > > IPR claim and
> > > > what disturbs me the most is "unpublished pending patent
> > > application".
> > > > This sounds like someone took what we have been
> discussing (and is
> > > > widely deployed), brought it to a lawyer and is now trying
> > > to make some
> > > > patent out of it. This smells very bad.
> > > >
> > > > Without knowing what exactly is claimed to be invented by
> > > the claimer, I
> > > > can not judge the effect it will have on my work.
> Anyhow, I do not
> > > > intend to invest any of my time into something that
> > > somebody else claims
> > > > exclusive rights too. If I did, I'd end up with the
> need to "pay"
> > > > (money-wise or other) for the right to use my own work.
> > > Would I be smart
> > > > if I did that? ;)
> > > >
> > > > The licensing terms themselves sound fair (but are vague
> > > enough to do
> > > > so...). My root concern is that there is nothing that has
> > > been invented
> > > > by that party. I am still waiting for someone to patent the
> > > use of the
> > > > letter "a" ("@" has been tried AFIK)...
> > > >
> > > > I think using a patented technology inside a standard will
> > > definitely
> > > > hinder the acceptance of that standard. Especially if it is
> > > something as
> > > > trivial as syslog over tls. So my vote is to put this work
> > > on hold until
> > > > further clarification can be obtained. If that means
> we'll have no
> > > > syslog RFC, so be it. That would probably be the better
> choice...
> > >
> > > My feelings are about the same. I don't really know the US
> > > patent system
> > > specifics, how long does it take to have something concrete
> > about the
> > > patent?
> > >
> > > --
> > > Bazsi
> > >
> >
>
___
Syslog mailing list
Syslog@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
RE: [Syslog] Draft-ietf-syslog-transport-tls-01.txt
I don't agree with putting all work on hold. Syslog-protocol and
syslog-transport-udp still make sense to standardize. And we could explore
syslog-transport-ssh, possibly soliciting input from IPR holders first.
Thanks,
Anton.
> -Original Message-
> From: Balazs Scheidler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 8:39 AM
> To: Rainer Gerhards
> Cc: Anton Okmianski (aokmians); [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [Syslog] Draft-ietf-syslog-transport-tls-01.txt
>
> On Thu, 2006-06-08 at 09:38 +0200, Rainer Gerhards wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I agree with Anton on all important issues. I've read the
> IPR claim and
> > what disturbs me the most is "unpublished pending patent
> application".
> > This sounds like someone took what we have been discussing (and is
> > widely deployed), brought it to a lawyer and is now trying
> to make some
> > patent out of it. This smells very bad.
> >
> > Without knowing what exactly is claimed to be invented by
> the claimer, I
> > can not judge the effect it will have on my work. Anyhow, I do not
> > intend to invest any of my time into something that
> somebody else claims
> > exclusive rights too. If I did, I'd end up with the need to "pay"
> > (money-wise or other) for the right to use my own work.
> Would I be smart
> > if I did that? ;)
> >
> > The licensing terms themselves sound fair (but are vague
> enough to do
> > so...). My root concern is that there is nothing that has
> been invented
> > by that party. I am still waiting for someone to patent the
> use of the
> > letter "a" ("@" has been tried AFIK)...
> >
> > I think using a patented technology inside a standard will
> definitely
> > hinder the acceptance of that standard. Especially if it is
> something as
> > trivial as syslog over tls. So my vote is to put this work
> on hold until
> > further clarification can be obtained. If that means we'll have no
> > syslog RFC, so be it. That would probably be the better choice...
>
> My feelings are about the same. I don't really know the US
> patent system
> specifics, how long does it take to have something concrete about the
> patent?
>
> --
> Bazsi
>
___
Syslog mailing list
Syslog@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
RE: [Syslog] Draft-ietf-syslog-transport-tls-01.txt
On Thu, 2006-06-08 at 09:38 +0200, Rainer Gerhards wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I agree with Anton on all important issues. I've read the IPR claim and
> what disturbs me the most is "unpublished pending patent application".
> This sounds like someone took what we have been discussing (and is
> widely deployed), brought it to a lawyer and is now trying to make some
> patent out of it. This smells very bad.
>
> Without knowing what exactly is claimed to be invented by the claimer, I
> can not judge the effect it will have on my work. Anyhow, I do not
> intend to invest any of my time into something that somebody else claims
> exclusive rights too. If I did, I'd end up with the need to "pay"
> (money-wise or other) for the right to use my own work. Would I be smart
> if I did that? ;)
>
> The licensing terms themselves sound fair (but are vague enough to do
> so...). My root concern is that there is nothing that has been invented
> by that party. I am still waiting for someone to patent the use of the
> letter "a" ("@" has been tried AFIK)...
>
> I think using a patented technology inside a standard will definitely
> hinder the acceptance of that standard. Especially if it is something as
> trivial as syslog over tls. So my vote is to put this work on hold until
> further clarification can be obtained. If that means we'll have no
> syslog RFC, so be it. That would probably be the better choice...
My feelings are about the same. I don't really know the US patent system
specifics, how long does it take to have something concrete about the
patent?
--
Bazsi
___
Syslog mailing list
Syslog@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
RE: [Syslog] Draft-ietf-syslog-transport-tls-01.txt
Hi all,
I agree with Anton on all important issues. I've read the IPR claim and
what disturbs me the most is "unpublished pending patent application".
This sounds like someone took what we have been discussing (and is
widely deployed), brought it to a lawyer and is now trying to make some
patent out of it. This smells very bad.
Without knowing what exactly is claimed to be invented by the claimer, I
can not judge the effect it will have on my work. Anyhow, I do not
intend to invest any of my time into something that somebody else claims
exclusive rights too. If I did, I'd end up with the need to "pay"
(money-wise or other) for the right to use my own work. Would I be smart
if I did that? ;)
The licensing terms themselves sound fair (but are vague enough to do
so...). My root concern is that there is nothing that has been invented
by that party. I am still waiting for someone to patent the use of the
letter "a" ("@" has been tried AFIK)...
I think using a patented technology inside a standard will definitely
hinder the acceptance of that standard. Especially if it is something as
trivial as syslog over tls. So my vote is to put this work on hold until
further clarification can be obtained. If that means we'll have no
syslog RFC, so be it. That would probably be the better choice...
Rainer
> -Original Message-
> From: Anton Okmianski (aokmians) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2006 11:26 PM
> To: David Harrington; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [Syslog] Draft-ietf-syslog-transport-tls-01.txt
>
> Royalty-free does not generally mean free! It means you don't
> charge per-end-user, per-server fee. But it does not mean
> there is not fee. Plus, license terms suggest "other
> reasonable, non-discriminations terms" and refer to
> reciprocal license needed to implement standards. Notice plural.
>
> I know the giants like Cisco and Huawei will find a common
> ground as they can sue each other silly with their patent
> portfolios. My concern is more from the perspective of
> having an open standard for everybody to use. I think some
> companies will be reluctant to use it given a law suit threat
> or the hustle of extra licensing.
>
> I think clarification on what is claimed are in order before
> investing more effort into this.
>
> Anton.
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: David Harrington [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2006 3:14 PM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: RE: [Syslog] Draft-ietf-syslog-transport-tls-01.txt
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Three things:
> >
> > 1) Whether the patent would survive a check into prior art is not
> > something the IETF takes a position on:
> >
> > Intellectual Property
> >
> >The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
> >Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might
> be claimed
> > to
> >pertain to the implementation or use of the technology
> described in
> >this document or the extent to which any license under
> such rights
> >might or might not be available; nor does it represent
> that it has
> >made any independent effort to identify any such rights.
> > Information
> >on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
> >found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
> >
> >Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
> >assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
> >attempt made to obtain a general license or permission
> for the use
> > of
> >such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
> >specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR
> repository
> > at
> >http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
> >
> >The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its
> attention any
> >copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
> >rights that may cover technology that may be required to
> implement
> >this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > 2) The company has filed a disclosure. You should read the
> disclosure
> > before losing your cool.
> > The disclosure says (roughly) it will license the technology
> > royalty-free for standards use.
> >
> > The disclosure can be found at
> >
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/ipr_detail_show.cgi?&ipr_id=717.
> >
> > 3) Since I work for the company filing the disclosure, I will recuse
> > myself from chairing this discussion.
RE: [Syslog] Draft-ietf-syslog-transport-tls-01.txt
Royalty-free does not generally mean free! It means you don't charge per-end-user, per-server fee. But it does not mean there is not fee. Plus, license terms suggest "other reasonable, non-discriminations terms" and refer to reciprocal license needed to implement standards. Notice plural. I know the giants like Cisco and Huawei will find a common ground as they can sue each other silly with their patent portfolios. My concern is more from the perspective of having an open standard for everybody to use. I think some companies will be reluctant to use it given a law suit threat or the hustle of extra licensing. I think clarification on what is claimed are in order before investing more effort into this. Anton. > -Original Message- > From: David Harrington [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2006 3:14 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [Syslog] Draft-ietf-syslog-transport-tls-01.txt > > Hi, > > Three things: > > 1) Whether the patent would survive a check into prior art is not > something the IETF takes a position on: > > Intellectual Property > >The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any >Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed > to >pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in >this document or the extent to which any license under such rights >might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has >made any independent effort to identify any such rights. > Information >on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be >found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. > >Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any >assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an >attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use > of >such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this >specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository > at >http://www.ietf.org/ipr. > >The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any >copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary >rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement >this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > 2) The company has filed a disclosure. You should read the disclosure > before losing your cool. > The disclosure says (roughly) it will license the technology > royalty-free for standards use. > > The disclosure can be found at > https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/ipr_detail_show.cgi?&ipr_id=717. > > 3) Since I work for the company filing the disclosure, I will recuse > myself from chairing this discussion. I have asked Chris to chair the > discussion. > > David Harrington > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > co-chair, Syslog WG > > > ___ > Syslog mailing list > Syslog@lists.ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog > ___ Syslog mailing list Syslog@lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
RE: [Syslog] Draft-ietf-syslog-transport-tls-01.txt
Hi, Three things: 1) Whether the patent would survive a check into prior art is not something the IETF takes a position on: Intellectual Property The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in this document or the extent to which any license under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at http://www.ietf.org/ipr. The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2) The company has filed a disclosure. You should read the disclosure before losing your cool. The disclosure says (roughly) it will license the technology royalty-free for standards use. The disclosure can be found at https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/ipr_detail_show.cgi?&ipr_id=717. 3) Since I work for the company filing the disclosure, I will recuse myself from chairing this discussion. I have asked Chris to chair the discussion. David Harrington [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] co-chair, Syslog WG ___ Syslog mailing list Syslog@lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
Re: [Syslog] Draft-ietf-syslog-transport-tls-01.txt
Hi, RFC3979 is our guide here: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3979.txt From Section 2 of that document: === RFC 2026, Section 10 established three basic principles regarding the IETF dealing with claims of Intellectual Property Rights: (a) the IETF will make no determination about the validity of any particular IPR claim (b) the IETF following normal processes can decide to use technology for which IPR disclosures have been made if it decides that such a use is warranted (c) in order for the working group and the rest of the IETF to have the information needed to make an informed decision about the use of a particular technology, all those contributing to the working group's discussions must disclose the existence of any IPR the Contributor or other IETF participant believes Covers or may ultimately Cover the technology under discussion. This applies to both Contributors and other participants, and applies whether they contribute in person, via email or by other means. The requirement applies to all IPR of the participant, the participant's employer, sponsor, or others represented by the participants, that is reasonably and personally known to the participant. No patent search is required. === As I see it (IANAL), we can decide to use the IPR, or not. For us to proceed, we will need: 1) to hear what the claim is, and 2) to decide if the terms of use are acceptable. The latter is in the disclosure that David sent around. Section 6.4 of RFC 3979 give specifics about what must be disclosed. I'll ask Miao and Yuhzi to give us what specifics they can at this time - can you update the disclosure notice to include what section of draft-ietf-syslog-transport-tls-01.txt contains the claimed IPR according to RFC 3979 Section 6.4.1. While we're waiting for that, I'll ask for people to look over the licensing terms and provide feedback to the list about its acceptability. Thanks, Chris On Wed, 7 Jun 2006, Balazs Scheidler wrote: On Wed, 2006-06-07 at 13:25 -0400, David B Harrington wrote: Hi, As co-chair it is my responsibility to make the WG aware that there has been a disclosure that an unpublished pending patent application might be infringed by the implementation of the specifications in draft-ietf-syslog-transport-tls-01.txt. The disclosure can be found at https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/ipr_detail_show.cgi?&ipr_id=717. David Harrington [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] co-chair, Syslog WG This is insane. I just tried google to search for syslog-ng and stunnel, I got 89000 result pages, the contents most probably describing how to combine syslog-ng and TLS, e.g. transfer syslog messages on a TLS encrypted channel I would call that prior art, although the details of the patent is to be seen, but I am not happy. I might even choose not to interoperate with the protocol specified here with syslog-ng. Puzzled. -- Bazsi ___ Syslog mailing list Syslog@lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog ___ Syslog mailing list Syslog@lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
RE: [Syslog] Draft-ietf-syslog-transport-tls-01.txt
Agree! Syslog over TLS is ancient. Does the patent submission also need to precede all discussions we had on this public list for years? Years ago when we decided to split syslog protocol and syslog transport it was to accommodate support of TLS transport in addition to UDP. This could be a reason to drop TLS and go with SSH. But what would prevent somebody from claiming a patent on this too regardless of prior art of these discussions? Does the patent claim cover syslog over any secure transport? How do we know what the patent actually claims? Does IETF require disclosure of patent specifics in these cases so that WG can asses the exact nature of overlap and decide on steps forward? When was the patent filed? It feels a bit like an abuse to use the IETF WG to do/publicize the work, then hold their work hostage with a patent threat. Especially on something so truly trivial. I certainly don't want to waste time standardizing something that could be covered by a patent. Anton. > -Original Message- > From: Balazs Scheidler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2006 2:21 PM > To: David B Harrington > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [Syslog] Draft-ietf-syslog-transport-tls-01.txt > > On Wed, 2006-06-07 at 13:25 -0400, David B Harrington wrote: > > Hi, > > > > As co-chair it is my responsibility to make the WG aware that there > > has been a disclosure that an unpublished pending patent application > > might be infringed by the implementation of the specifications in > > draft-ietf-syslog-transport-tls-01.txt. > > > > The disclosure can be found at > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/ipr_detail_show.cgi?&ipr_id=717. > > > > David Harrington > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > co-chair, Syslog WG > > This is insane. I just tried google to search for syslog-ng > and stunnel, > I got 89000 result pages, the contents most probably describing how to > combine syslog-ng and TLS, e.g. transfer syslog messages on a TLS > encrypted channel > > I would call that prior art, although the details of the > patent is to be > seen, but I am not happy. I might even choose not to interoperate with > the protocol specified here with syslog-ng. > > Puzzled. > > -- > Bazsi > > > ___ > Syslog mailing list > Syslog@lists.ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog > ___ Syslog mailing list Syslog@lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
Re: [Syslog] Draft-ietf-syslog-transport-tls-01.txt
On Wed, 2006-06-07 at 13:25 -0400, David B Harrington wrote: > Hi, > > As co-chair it is my responsibility to make the WG aware that there > has been a disclosure that an unpublished pending patent application > might be infringed by the implementation of the specifications in > draft-ietf-syslog-transport-tls-01.txt. > > The disclosure can be found at > https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/ipr_detail_show.cgi?&ipr_id=717. > > David Harrington > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > co-chair, Syslog WG This is insane. I just tried google to search for syslog-ng and stunnel, I got 89000 result pages, the contents most probably describing how to combine syslog-ng and TLS, e.g. transfer syslog messages on a TLS encrypted channel I would call that prior art, although the details of the patent is to be seen, but I am not happy. I might even choose not to interoperate with the protocol specified here with syslog-ng. Puzzled. -- Bazsi ___ Syslog mailing list Syslog@lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
[Syslog] Draft-ietf-syslog-transport-tls-01.txt
Hi, As co-chair it is my responsibility to make the WG aware that there has been a disclosure that an unpublished pending patent application might be infringed by the implementation of the specifications in draft-ietf-syslog-transport-tls-01.txt. The disclosure can be found at https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/ipr_detail_show.cgi?&ipr_id=717. David Harrington [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] co-chair, Syslog WG ___ Syslog mailing list Syslog@lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
RE: [Syslog] draft-ietf-syslog-transport-tls-01.txt
Hi David, I volunteer to > 1) a person to check the grammar? > 2) a person to check the syslog technical parts? > 3) a person to check compatibility with the other WG documents? > > We also need general reviews of the document by multiple people. > I can not do > 4) a person to check the TLS technical parts? because I am not knowledgable enough about TLS. I am not sure if I can start this week, but I think I can finish a review until around end of next week. Rainer ___ Syslog mailing list Syslog@lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
[Syslog] draft-ietf-syslog-transport-tls-01.txt
Hi, A new revision of the syslog/TLS draft is available. http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-syslog-transport-tls-01 .txt We need reviewers. Can we get 1) a person to check the grammar? 2) a person to check the syslog technical parts? 3) a person to check compatibility with the other WG documents? 4) a person to check the TLS technical parts? We also need general reviews of the document by multiple people. Thanks, David Harrington co-chair, Syslog WG [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Syslog mailing list Syslog@lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
