Re: iSCSI: SRP status

[David Jablon <dpj@theworld.com>]

Regarding feedback on draft-jablon-speke-00.txt ...

First, this draft is an informational document, and as such does
not have to strictly adhere to the requirements for an RFC.
Some relevant advice is found in RFC 3160:

>6.4.5 Patents in IETF Standards
>...
>   If you are writing an Internet Draft and you know of a patent that
>   applies to the technology you're writing about, don't list the patent
>   in the document.  Instead, send a note to the IETF Secretariat ...
>... Intellectual property rights aren't
>   mentioned in RFCs because RFCs never change after they are published,
>   but knowledge of IPR can change at any time.  Therefore, an IPR list
>   in a RFC could be incomplete and mislead the reader. ...

The reason for not including patent references is apparently to insure that
RFCs do not have out-of-date or incomplete information.  But the short
lifetime of Internet-Drafts, and the fact that they can be easily and quickly
updated at any time, would seem to warrant including specific information.
RFC 3160 refers to RFC 2026, which says nothing on this point.
Does anyone know of other reasons for not having full and complete
information in a draft?

On the subject of whether the draft includes "unsupported opinions",
At 03:23 PM 3/28/02 -0800, Tom Wu wrote:
>In my opinion, section 4.10 of that I-D, in its entirety, crosses this line and sticks out like a sore thumb.  It presents no new facts about the techniques being discussed; the math behind SPEKE is already disclosed elsewhere in the draft, while the math behind SRP is disclosed in RFC2945.  What it does do, is present the author's unsupported opinion on what techniques are similar or different to/from other techniques.  I ask that it be removed.

I think section 4.10 of the draft and reference to specific patents is
important, given the current state of awareness of these issues,
and rumors that abound.  Comparison of related techniques is essential
for an understanding of these methods, regarding patents or otherwise.
I think more specific facts, rather than less, encourages discussion and review.

If I said that I think that your opinion is unsupported, because I believe
the draft statements are supported, we could talk in circles forever.
Obviously we disagree on some things.

Nevertheless, I'll amend the draft to use simpler factual statements,
and I'll try harder to avoid statements that might be viewed
as opinions, however supported I may think they are.

-- David