Fwd: Re: SRP in OpenSSH draft protocol spec

[RJ Atkinson <rja%inet.org@localhost>]

This should have been sent to the IETF SSH list as well.
Forwarded FYI.

Ran

>Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 16:39:02 -0700
>From: Tom Wu <tom%arcot.com@localhost>
>Organization: Arcot Systems
>X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.14-5.0 i686)
>X-Accept-Language: en
>To: RJ Atkinson <rja%inet.org@localhost>
>Subject: Re: SRP in OpenSSH draft protocol spec
>
>RJ Atkinson wrote:
>> 
>> Examples:
>>         RFC-1822
>>         RFC-1988
>>         (Other examples might exist; these just appeared
>> quickly when I searched rfc-index.txt)
>> 
>>         Obviously the language in the RFC should be wordsmith'd
>> by the patent holder's counsel to reflect which rights
>> (and limitations, if any) the patent holder is willing
>> to grant.  In the IETF context, there ought not be a
>> requirement for folks to individually and separately contact
>> the patent holder to obtain a licence -- instead some form
>> of general licence should be granted, IMHO.
>> 
>>         RFC-1790 & RFC-2339 might also be of interest,
>> though their scope is broader and a bit different than
>> the previous examples.
>
>Thanks for the references.  Clearly, though, not all companies choose to
>go through the trouble of the RFC process just for a license statement. 
>How do you feel about the other agreements listed in the IETF's IPR
>section, which do not have a corresponding RFC?
>
>>         The rest of us don't have a statement formally from
>> the patent holder indicating that SRP is free.  That is
>> a substantial legal problem lots of places.  While I believe
>> you, what matters is whether a court would take such on
>> trust (and a court would not).
>
>Have you contacted Stanford OTL, http://otl.stanford.edu/, for
>confirmation?
>
>> Thanks,
>> 
>> Ran
>> rja%inet.org@localhost
>
>Tom
>-- 
>Tom Wu
>Principal Software Engineer
>Arcot Systems
>(408) 969-6124
>"The Borg?  Sounds Swedish..."