[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: IPsec and patents
> Note- DEC has patented this clever technique.
I'd like to put out a request and reminder since there are many on this
list who are somewhat new to the IETF way of doing things.
1) The IETF normally tries to avoid using patented techniques in IETF
specifications, though it is not always possible (sigh).
2) In any event, it is ALWAYS important to note ALL possible
intellectual property claims relating to any proposal in the FIRST
note or presentation of the proposal. It is not good practice to
propose a technology which is subject to intellectual property claims
(e.g. patents) without that up front disclosure.
IMHO, we do NOT want a repeat of recent events in another area of the
IETF where a vendor pushed a particular algorithm and did not disclose
patent claims up front. If that happens here, I _will_ formally make
a process violation complaint at or before Last Call.
However clever one might consider the DEC technique, I don't want to
include it in any portion of the standards-track specification UNLESS
DEC formally agrees in writing to license it to all comers at no cost.
One of the best reasons to use DES-CBC as a mandatory algorithm is
that one does NOT have to obtain any license to use or implement that
algorithm. The same is true of MD4 and MD5. These facts are a large
part of the reason that existing IETF specs use DES and MD5 as the
mandatory algorithms.
Regards,
Ran
atkinson@itd.nrl.navy.mil
References: