On Thu, 4 Aug 2005, Matthew Grooms wrote: > Not sure if this helps at all, but I did some searching a bit to read > others comments concerning the NAT-T / IPR debate. These two documents > get mentioned repeatedly and would appear to have something to do with > other vendors decision to adopt NAT-T support. > > http://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/MICROSOFT-NAT-Traversal.txt > http://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/SSH-NAT > > There was also some mention of a third claim but it was hard to find > details on the subject. Lastly, some people voiced concerns regarding
ietf.org -> IPR -> Search -> NAT-T https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/ipr_detail_show.cgi?&ipr_id=88 ? > the application of NAT-T to IKEv2 as the first of the two disclosures > mention the IKEv1 RFC specifically where the other is quite broad. > > I can't imagine anyone is actively defending any patent claims here with > so many implementations of IKE / NAT-T out there. Would a group such as > the FreeBSD Foundation be able to help find answers to legal questions > such as this? I had hoped to get a clear answer after I heared that NetBSD had started on this but why does nobody send mail to those people listed as contacts and asks? -- Bjoern A. Zeeb bzeeb at Zabbadoz dot NeT _______________________________________________ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
