The WG's inability to choose is good in this case.

[HUGO@watson.ibm.com]

Ref:  Your note of Thu, 19 Sep 1996 15:04:33 -0700 (PDT) (attached)

 >
 > > One personal clarification regarding (2): in my opinion, there is a
 > > strong technical basis to require key exchange/refreshment via authenticated
 > > handshakes as supported by Oakley (even if in-line keying is also supported
 > > by the protocol).
 >
 > Doesn't IBM have a patent on this?
 >
 > --tom
 >

IBM has a patent that cover some techniques for key refreshment
(more precisley for two-party authentication protocols).
IBM has granted a free license for use of this patent (US Patent 5,148,479)
in connection to IKMP. For the exact "grant of rights" text see RFC1822.
Therefore, there is no reason to avoid these techniques; in particular,
Oakley incorporates them already.

BTW, this patent (files 3/91 issued 9/92) pre-dates any work
in the IPSEC WG. None of the new work that we did in relation to this WG
activity (e.g., MKMP, SKEME, HMAC) and which is now incorporated
into current WG drafts (Oakley, AH, etc) has been patented by us.

Hugo
 >

---

• Prev by Date: Re: resistance to swamping attacks.
• Next by Date: Re: Concerns
• Prev by thread: The WG's inability to choose is good in this case.
• Next by thread: resistance to swamping attacks.
• Index(es):
  • Main
  • Thread