RE: Huntington Beach DRAFT minutes

[David Jablon <dpj@world.std.com>]

Providing an accurate summary of an IP investigation is indeed a delicate task,
and I encourage those interested in exploring IP issues to look directly to
authoritative statements.  Otherwise, when evaluating statements like
"Alice says that Bob said that the position of Charlie on Diana's patents
is such and such", it may be difficult to discern the necessary relevant
information.

And when people find that authoritative statements (such as those listed
at http://www.ietf.org/ipr.html) are inadequate, they should demand
clarification directly from the sources.  To assist in this process, any
summary, whether or not it is supplemented with editorial comments,
should probably also point to contact information for authoritative sources.

-- David


At 05:40 PM 3/2/02 -0500, Black_David@emc.com wrote:
>> I cannot find in these minutes any mention of the
>> presentation on the SRP Patents given by David Black.
>
>Indeed it is missing.  Here's the summary I propose to add:
>
>-- SRP Intellectual Property Rights (David Black)
>
>See David's slides for details (contents have been posted to the list).
>Lucent
>has broken their promise to tell the IETF whether the EKE patents are
>related to
>SRP.  Phoenix statement on whether the SPEKE patent relates to SRP is
>expected
>prior to Minneapolis.  Tom Wu (inventor of SRP, author of RFC 2945) attended
>the meeting and said that it is Stanford University's position (Tom invented
>SRP while at Stanford) that no patent rights other than Stanford's (for
>which
>a free license is available on the web) are required for use of SRP.
>Requirement level (MUST/SHOULD/MAY) for SRP in iSCSI will be taken up in
>Minneapolis.
>
>Thanks,
>--David