On 12 Dec 2016, at 9:07, Alvaro Retana (aretana) wrote:
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.
I agree with Alvaro, with the caveat that it would be more than "too
close"; it would be the same as taking a stance on validity.
It's the implementors problem to consider IPR issues even without a
disclosure.
Thanks!
Ben.
_______________________________________________
sidr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
