RE: [TLS] Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-tls-srp-13.txt

["Blumenthal, Uri" <uri.blumenthal@xxxxxxxxx>]

>> .......I would think that the existence
>> of implementations, in several languages no less, and the support of
>> the associated implementors who have invested time/energy in solving
>> not just the technical problems but political/legal/IPR ones if
>> anything should carry more weight.
>
> Implementations are one indicator of support but they're not
> the only one.........

Reading the Stanford legal disclosure 
(http://otl.stanford.edu/pdf/97006.pdf) - while it was very 
nice of them to release THEIR patent to the public - I saw a big
disclaimer on page 2 section 4 Negation of Warranties, in 
particular 4.1. 

I've heard that other parties claim that their patents cover SRP 
method as well. Stanford license agreement pretty much says "yeah 
those claims may be true - and if so it's your problem". (Caveat: 
I'm not a lawyer - the above is how I understand the written text. 
Feel free to correct me and provide the right interpretation.) 
I understand that since Stanford doesn't charge for the license, 
one can't demand or expect much from them, but you must understand 
those who find such a license less than reassuring.

In short - I'd like to see some evidence that political/legal/IPR 
problems indeed have been solved (which is harder than writing an
implementation :-).

Regards,
Uri
<Disclaimer> I speak for myself only

_______________________________________________
TLS mailing list
TLS@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls