* I am surprised nobody has notified the IETF about * this already, so I submitted a third-party IPR disclosure update using * the IETF IPR web form, to make people aware of the claims. It is * probably stuck in the IETF IPR queue somewhere."
The person who raised this issue, and appealed about it, in the LAMPS working group was asked more than once to file a disclosure and they never did. So thanks, Simon. * (It's likely good to avoid 'interpreting' legal documents in any IETF official document, aside from pointing to the relevant references.) Anyone can file a disclosure. The IETF takes no stand on the merits of any disclosure and generally avoids discussing patents on its mailing lists. * 2. The patent license says (roughly) that it applies when you implement * 3. My take of that is that ... * 4. Having the TLS spec allow non-ephemeral modes could thus be a problem ... And here are examples of why we do not talk about it. Patents are a legal thing, not a technical thing, and taking legal advice based on mailing list content is generally not a good idea. :) Those interested in understanding patents and the IETF’s policy should look at https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79 Moving TLS WG to BCC as this is off-topic.
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
