I don't see an IPR disclosure against this draft (not even a 3rd party
one). I take it that the concern is related to the disclosure at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/CERTICOM-IPSEC-ECC ?
As Russ said, there are precedents for this way to deal with
IPR - in fact if we have failed to get an IPR
Brian:
I support progress as Informational RFC. This is the approach that
has been used in other Security Area WGs when the IPR status of the
algorithm is unclear or unfavorable.
RFC 3278 is an example. This document also deals with ECC, and it
was produced by the S/MIME WG.
RFC 3058 is
My concern is that it is very rare for the IETF to define bits on the wire
in Informational RFCs. It is done for outside contributions, but not
usually for our own work.
Typically, if there is concern about standardization, we put something as
experimental.
If this is chosen for experimental
Given that I have no formal say in the matter, I believe that this is best
dealt with by Russ and Brian.
My job was to raise the issue.
Yours,
Joel
At 10:50 AM 1/15/2006, Eric Rescorla wrote:
Joel M. Halpern [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My concern is that it is very rare for the IETF to define
