[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Looking for statement of patent issues re ISAKMP/Oakley

  There are no patents on IKE itself and to my knowledge there are
none on the protocols it's based on. All of the mandatory-to-implement
options-- DES, SHA or MD5, Diffie-Hellman over modp groups using pre-shared 
keys-- are free of patent claims. 

  RSA (and their lawyers) may claim that DSS infringes on one of their
patents but that's a disputed subject and many choose to simply ignore them.
You can get a royalty free-- for commercial and non-commercial use-- copy 
of DSS as part of the IKE reference implementation by pointing your favorite
browser to

	http://www.cisco.com/public/library/isakmp/disclaimer.html

and following the hotlinks. 

  This is an up-to-date implementation (ISAKMP v8 and IKE v6) which 
interoperates with other implementations (e.g. cisco IOS and SSH) to the 
extent possible (it is tied to a PF_KEYv1 version of the NRL IPSec code and 
doesn't have any mechanism in place to express IPSec policy).

  US patent 5548646 ("System for signatureless transmission and reception 
of data packets between computer networks") sounds alot like tunnel mode IPSec
between gateways. That was the subject of considerable debate on this list
some time ago. I don't recall what if anything was resolved though. Perhaps 
someone with a better memory than mine remembers.

  Dan.

> I was putting together a memo on licensing needs for IPSec products,
> and looked in the various drafts for guidance.  From what I
> understand, IETF standards-track documents are supposed to contain a
> section discussing any patent issues that may pertain to the
> technology in question.
> 
> A number of the transform specs contain such sections (e.g., DES and
> IDEA).  Somewhat to my surprise, the ISAKMP/Oakley documents do not.
> 
> I also looked in other places (specifically, Scheier) for input.  It
> mentioned the well-known fact that RSA is subject to patents and
> licenses.  No confusion there.  
> 
> Scheier also discussed the situation for DSS.  As I read it, it sounds
> like the patent situation there is muddled.  In particular, he
> mentions a U.S. Government patent (D. Kravitz) supposedly generally
> licensed at no cost -- but also mentions that claims have been made
> that the Schorr patent applies as well.
> 
> Question:  Does anyone have any further insight on this topic?  And
> could this be added to the document?