> On CGA. It is different now. We face mass deployment of required security > worldwide and I hear it all the time now. CGA being a base for our > addresses is far different scope of use than RSA mumbo-jumbo et al. The IPR > is a real problem and I think a show stopper. There can be no vendor > advantage over others with CGA if it is to become pervasive, and > questionable for the IETF to pursue this to far without getting some type of > resolution. The IETF could be setting a precedent and opening pandora's box > and end up sitting in anti-trust problem. Go talk to your IETF ISOC council > is my advise if you have not already. It is also not the same type of legal > problem as using RSA as an entity. > > I think labeling it often as IPR issue is prudent in our community. > Including not using it because of the IPR.
I agree with the IPR concerns for CGA. It just feels like overkill to have to attach a "there is IPR" piece of text every time we mention CGA in documents. The documents that specify to how implement CGA (the stuff that is actually covered by the claimed IPR) should have the required notices for sure, but I'm a bit leery of putting it everywhere where CGA is referenced. My concern is that should the IPR situation for CGA change we'll have a dozen documents which potentially contain inaccurate information. But perhaps this isn't a big deal. Erik -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------
