Re: DRAFT minutes, SACRED WG, Minneapolis IETF

["Yongge Wang" <ywang@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> Next, IPR issues were considered.  Magnus noted that an IPR statement for
> SRP has been posted on the IETF web page. Ted Ts'o commented that the SRP
> statement, authored by Thomas Wu, seems rather informal, and considered that
> it might be better to have something authoritative from Stanford.  Thomas Wu
> responded, indicating that the terms as posted can be documented as
> Stanford's policy.  Radia Perlman and Charlie Kaufman (Iris) have previously
> stated their goal and intent that PRM be unencumbered.  Steve Bellovin
> stated that EKE and DH-EKE are covered by a Lucent-controlled patent; he has
> no contact or influence with those responsible for licensing, but believes
> that licensing under some terms would probably be possible..  Steve also
> commented that SRP might arguably infringe on the EKE patent, and suggested
> that this should be investigated.  Ted Ts'o pointed out that the fact of IPR
> claims covering SPEKE is generally known

If none of the protocols is patent free, why we do not make the following
choice:
The requirement and standard do not specify any algorithm, leave it as a
black-box... And the standard should be general enough so that most of the
algorithms could be implemented (each algorithm should have a unique
identifier).

Regards,
Yongge