On 12/12/16, 8:34 AM, "Mirja Kuehlewind" <[email protected]> wrote:
Mirja: Hi! > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Just a thought: Would it be useful to add an IESG note saying something > like in the sheperd write-up: > "[...] there are published references > that preceded the filing of the patent, especially those > mentioned in RFC6090. RFC6090 notes that its descriptions > "may be useful for implementing the fundamental algorithms without > using any of the specialized methods that were developed in > following years."" > I know we usuall don't do things like this. But I'm wondering how someone > who wants to implement this should figure this out otherwise....? I think we would be getting too close to taking a stance on the validity, enforceability of the IPR. The WG has already discussed and chose to go ahead. RFC6090 is a normative reference for this document, pointing at the signature algorithm to be used. Any implementer would have to at least check out RFC6090 and would find the text above in the Abstract. Thanks! Alvaro. _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
