Fwd: Re: SRP in OpenSSH draft protocol spec

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

This should also have been copied to the IETF SSH list.
Forwarded now.  Sorry for overlooking the absence on 
the CC line.

Ran

>Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 19:56:49 -0400
>To: Tom Wu <tom%arcot.com@localhost>
>From: RJ Atkinson <rja%inet.org@localhost>
>Subject: Re: SRP in OpenSSH draft protocol spec
>Cc: RJ Atkinson <rja%inet.org@localhost>
>
>At 19:39 02/04/01, Tom Wu wrote:
>
>>How do you feel about the other agreements listed in the IETF's 
>>IPR section, which do not have a corresponding RFC?
>
>        Uncomfortable, on average.  Note that RFC-2026
>is NOT a shield from this concern because it defines the
>outer limits of what the IETF is permitted to agree to,
>rather than the day-to-day practices of the IETF.  On
>at least some occasions, IETF WGs have declined to permit
>a patented technology into the specification despite an
>online statement in the IPR section.
>
>        Publishing an Informational RFC isn't hard and need
>only be done once to clarify things.  Publishing standards-track
>RFCs is rather harder than Informational, I admit.
>
>>>         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?
>
>        An important point is that one needs to have confidence 
>in the patent licence status without each of us having to 
>contact the patent holder.  
>
>        Stanford OTL has not responded yet to my enquiry, 
>purely as an aside.
>
>Ran