Thanks for reviving this thread. I agree this is important work, but we need to have consensus to bring the item into the working group. I think the IPR issue is the main sticking point.
I'll note that RFC 5448 has a similar IPR declaration and both documents are targeted as informational. Some possible ways forward: 1. Come up with an alternative proposal. Since no one has already stepped forward I don't think this is realistic. 2. Accept the document into the working group. 3. Reject the document, which will force the work to go through the independent submission process, which will probably result in less broad and thorough review. 4. Amendment to the license terms of the IPR - I have received no indication that this will happen The document will likely get published in either case 2 or 3 above. I'd like to work through this discussion over the next few weeks so please voice your views on this thread. Thanks, Joe On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 5:53 PM Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca> wrote: > > Alan DeKok <al...@deployingradius.com> wrote: > > Let's be realistic about the IETF. While we pretend that we have > > individual contributors, the reality is that large companies fund > huge > > chunks of it. Those companies effectively shield individual > > contributors from patent lawsuits. i.e. no one will sue an employee > of > > Cisco about a standard, they will instead sue Cisco directly. > > Actually, nobody seems to sue the majors except other majors. > Nobody seems to sue small entities that have no money except patent trolls. > > > Michael and I have no such protection. As an implementor of > EAP-SIM > > and EAP-AKA, he may be personally liable. As the person hosting the > > web site and source code, I may also be personally liable. > > I don't think you can be sued for patent infringemenet for writing about > the patent, only for using it. Copyright, yes, but not patents. > > > And realistically, Open Source has driven the explosion of tech > > companies in the past 10 years. I think few companies could have > been > > profitable if they had paid license fees for an OS, web server, etc. > > So there should be a vested interest in protecting open source as > part > > of the IETF standardization process. > > I agree with you, and so it borders on seriously insulting to open source > authors to have these super-vague IPR claims show up from non-technical > lawyers. > > Let me restate my original opinion: > - if this is important to 5G, then anything that gets in the way of > adoption is a problem. If it's not important enough to fix the IPR, > then it's actually that important. > - adopting AKA is very important. > > > -- > ] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh > networks [ > ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works | network > architect [ > ] m...@sandelman.ca http://www.sandelman.ca/ | ruby on > rails [ > > > _______________________________________________ > Emu mailing list > Emu@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu >
_______________________________________________ Emu mailing list Emu@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu
