Re: [TLS] Document Action: 'TLS Elliptic Curve Cipher Suites with

["Mark Tillinghast" <m.tillinghast1@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hello,
I did want to encourage people to have a look at Matthew Campagna's post.
I am not sure that people hav seen this. And it is authoritative-- I 
instigated this though my contacts at certicom to clarify their position on 
this issue in the hope that we could marshall our way past these issues..
Please have a look as it should alay doubts or misgivings; surely those 
related to Certicom's "patent issues" involvement in ECC.
Thank You,
Mark
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Richard M Stallman" <rms@xxxxxxx>
To: <martin.rex@xxxxxxx>
Cc: <tls@xxxxxxxx>; <iesg@xxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, June 30, 2008 4:03 PM
Subject: Re: [TLS] Document Action: 'TLS Elliptic Curve Cipher Suites with


>    Discussing IPR issues burns a whole lot of resources in a useless 
> fashion.
>
> Since "IPR" refers to a congeries of different laws, any general
> statement about "IPR issues" is almost always an overgeneralization.
> Your statement is one.
>
> Copyright issues and trademark issues generally do NOT cause serious
> problems for a proposed technique, because it is easy enough to work
> around them.  To discuss them here at length would probably be
> superfluous.
>
> By contrast, patent problems are often fatal, and there is no remedy
> except to wait as much as 20 years.  Thus, discussing whether a
> proposed technique is patented is absolutely crucial.
>
> Lumping together things which are so different in their effects is
> encouraging confusion.  Thus, using the term "IPR" does only harm.
> Avoiding it is easy, so let's avoid it.  When referring to patent
> issues, let's call them "patent issues".
> _______________________________________________
> TLS mailing list
> TLS@xxxxxxxx
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls 

_______________________________________________
TLS mailing list
TLS@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls