On Friday, 11 November 2016 12:55:02 UTC, Gervase Markham wrote: > If Microsoft are going to do this, maybe it's a moot point, but my > current feeling is that requiring CAs to implement exactly one of the > methods from ballot 169, at a time when all methods are under a greater > or smaller IPR uncertainty cloud, would put CAs who would need to make > changes at risk of an unknowing IPR infringement. So our current plan is > not to require this. However, comments on this viewpoint are welcomed.
My review (based on what I saw posted to CA/B mailing lists) suggested that there isn't active patent uncertainty at all for some Ballot 169 methods. I would welcome more information if you have some. I saw documents citing patents which might be infringed by implementing methods 3.2.2.4.1 through 4, plus numbers 7 and 8. This leaves, seemingly unpatented 3.2.2.4.5 Domain Authorization Document 3.2.2.4.6 Agreed-Upon Change to Website 3.2.2.4.9 Test Certificate 3.2.2.4.10. TLS Using a Random Number _______________________________________________ dev-security-policy mailing list dev-security-policy@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-security-policy
