RE: iSCSI: New Lucent stmt on SRP

[Sukanta ganguly <sganguly@yahoo.com>]

David,
  Great. I hear your views.

Best of Luck
SG



--- Black_David@emc.com wrote:
> >    I did not posting any "quasi-legal" analysis
> with
> > my last email. I don't how you came to that
> > conclusion?
> 
> "With all the legal mumbo-jumbo" ...
> 
> Those who don't understand "legal mumbo-jumbo"
> should talk
> to those who do (e.g., lawyers).
> 
> > Chasing red-herrings by my comments?
> 
> See
>
http://www.pdl.cmu.edu/mailinglists/ips/mail/msg09378.html
> which concerns the post you responded to, and I
> strongly suggest
> talking to an expert in these issues before
> responding further.
> 
> > Are we ignoring that this is an issue for all the
> folks
> > who have spent two years on this (personally my
> > involvement is just about an year into it)? 
> 
> No, we are trying to have an informed discussion.
> Uninformed speculation about what the Lucent IPR
> letter might
> mean is not a positive contribution to that.
> 
> >    This is the first time I was told after over
> eight
> > years of IETF participation and implementation of
> open
> > standards protocols that I need to have a lawyer
> look
> > into issues before open standand technology could
> be
> > implemented.
> 
> You have *NOT* been told that.  What you have been
> told is
> that consulting a legal expert may be necessary in
> order to
> understand the legal meaning and legal implications
> of an
> IPR letter to the IETF.  If the fact that there are
> intellectual
> property rights issues with IETF open standards
> technology is
> a new discovery, then I suggest reviewing the
> quantity, variety,
> and vintage of the IPR statements at:
> 
> 	http://www.ietf.org/ipr.html
> 
> >   I am just interested in knowing what we, as a
> group,
> > have in mind to avoid any legal problems with
> > implementing this protocol into a product.
> 
> I am just interested in killing off a discussion
> thread
> on the legal interpretation and implication(s) of
> the wording
> used in Lucent's letter.  The broader issues of the
> appropriate
> level of requirements for SRP and the like based on
> what we know
> about patents that may be involved is still germane,
> but any
> discussion about the meaning of IPR statements on
> the IETF web
> site should really be informed by prior consultation
> with legal
> experts to avoid unfounded speculation, and this is
> NOT the
> first time I have made this sort of request.
> 
> This may seem a bit harsh, but I really do want to
> kill this
> discussion thread on interpreting the new Lucent
> statement
> so that we can focus on the important issues of
> requirements
> for authentication and what to specify.
> 
> Thanks,
> --David
> ---------------------------------------------------
> David L. Black, Senior Technologist
> EMC Corporation, 42 South St., Hopkinton, MA  01748
> +1 (508) 249-6449 *NEW*      FAX: +1 (508) 497-8500
> black_david@emc.com         Cell: +1 (978) 394-7754
> ---------------------------------------------------


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Greetings - send holiday greetings for Easter, Passover
http://greetings.yahoo.com/