|
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: iSCSI: DH-CHAP - Defensive IPR ???Bill Strahm wrote: > Elizabeth, (and inventors as well) > > In a private exchange with David, I hinted that EMC ought to get a > patent on CHAP-DH and give it to the community as a defensive nature > so some weasel can't come behind and submarine us later... One of the reasons I made the patent licensing for SRP royalty-free was precisely as a defensive measure to prevent others from obstructing free implementation. There is no reason to believe that doing the same for CHAP-DH would result in any different outcome. Tom > His reply is that in reality it is David, Uri, and Steve that invented > the protocol and so he didn't think the three companies legal teams > could ever get together enough to actually patent CHAP-DH. I would > hope that they could, just for defensive reasons... > > A good defensive patent beats prior art any day... > Bill > On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 12:20:29PM -0600, Elizabeth G. Rodriguez wrote: > >>All, >> >> >> >>Please expect another email, from the Transport ADs, on the topic of >> >>SRP and intellectual property issues. >> >> >> >>As was discussed both in Minneapolis and over the reflector, there is >> >>concern over the MUST implement status of SRP, and the group is tasked >> >>with the responsibility of evaluating both SRP as well as other >>alternatives, >> >>to make the best possible choice(s) for the iSCSI authentication >>mechanisms. >> >> >> >>Mentioned in Minneapolis was the possibility of CHAP enhanced by use of >>a >> >>Diffie-Hellman Exchange. David Black has authored an individual draft >>on >> >>this topic. The DH-CHAP draft, draft-black-ips-iscsi-dhchap-00.txt has >>been >> >>submitted to the I-D servers and is also available at >> >>http://www.ultranet.com/~dlb237/ips/draft-black-ips-iscsi-dhchap-00.txt. >> >>The draft is an individual submission that the IPS WG is free to >> >>(quoting from the draft abstract) "adopt, modify, reject, fold, >> >>spindle, and/or mutilate as it sees fit". Since David Black will be >> >>participating in the resulting discussion as an individual and author >> >>of the draft, and not as a WG co-chair, I will be the WG chair >> >>responsible for this draft and for determining WG rough consensus >> >>on this set of issues. >> >> >> >>The goal of this discussion is to determine the appropriate level >> >>of requirements (MUST/SHOULD/MAY implement) for the inband iSCSI >> >>authentication mechanisms (SRP and CHAP as specified in the >> >>iSCSI draft, DH-CHAP as documented above), and more importantly >> >>to come to consensus on a solid technical rationale for these >> >>requirement levels. While I understand the level of frustration >> >>and impatience with this situation, I have a few requests to make >> >>of participants in this discussion: >> >>- Civility and respect for other members of the WG are virtues; >> >> please practice these virtues early and often. >> >>- Discussion of requirements levels (MUST/SHOULD/MAY) in the absence >> >> of technical rationale is an invitation to confusion. Please >> >> summarize the technical rationale when advocating a requirements >> >> level. >> >>- Unbounded speculation about possible IPR claims is unproductive >> >> Each case in which the IPS WG has taken up discussion of a >> >> possible IPR claim has been based on existence of a patent >> >> or a publicly-disclosed patent application. It is only >> >> appropriate to discuss possible IPR claims on the list when >> >> they meet this criteria. Those with IPR concerns that do >> >> not meet this criteria should contact me directly off the >> >> list so that I can determine how to proceed in consultation >> >> with the Area Directors. >> >>Thank you all for your help on these matters. >> >> >> >>Elizabeth Rodriguez >> >>IPS WG co-chair >> >> >> >> -- Tom Wu Principal Software Engineer Arcot Systems (408) 969-6124 "The Borg? Sounds Swedish..."
Home Last updated: Thu Apr 11 11:18:20 2002 9597 messages in chronological order |