RE: iSCSI: SRP vs DH-CHAP

[Paul Koning <pkoning@equallogic.com>]

Excerpt of message (sent 3 April 2002) by Black_David@emc.com:
> ...
> >    [ To provide the context for this question, consider that EMC is in 
> >      a similar situation with iSCSI - http://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/EMC-IPS
> 
> >    - using generally the same language as we had seen with Lucent. ]
> 
> For the record, EMC never issued a statement remotely resembling the
> following November 30, 2001 statement from Lucent:
> 
> 	As you are aware, RFC 2945 was neither submitted or proposed by
> 	Lucent.  Therefore, Lucent's general patent statement to IETF in
> 	1999 does not cover RFC 2945.
> 
> Lucent has subsequently revised this statement to adopt a more cooperative
> attitude.  IMHO, applying the words "similar situation" to EMC is misleading
> or worse; I do not recommend trashing my employer's good name as a way
> to influence my thinking ;-).  Lucent was a major factor in creating the
> current situation we find ourselves in and the resulting delays - EMC was
> not.

It is true that EMC's statement matches what the IETF IPR guidelines
ask for right from the start.  And it's also true that Lucent's
statements INITIALLY did not.  So you're quite right to say that
Lucent and EMC should not be described as "generally the same".

However, if we look only at the current state, i.e., consider only the
last message from Lucent that supersedes the earlier ones, then
Lucent's current position is equally in conformance with IETF IPR
guidelines. 

So yes, Lucent's earlier messages created the upheaval and delay of
the interim and Minneapolis meetings.  But they have corrected that.
They are no longer causing the current situation or any further delay.

    paul