Re: iSCSI: SRP status

[Tom Wu <tom@arcot.com>]

David Jablon wrote:
> At 04:10 PM 3/27/02 -0500, "David Wong <rsaecc@yahoo.com>" wrote:
> 
>>May I know which SRP infringe which cliam of 
>>SPEKE patent: US Patent 6,226,383?
>>I feel that SRP does not infringe anything of SPEKE
>>though it may infringe EKE patent
>>(I am sure SPEKE infringe EKE patent: 
>>US Patent 5,241,559 and US Patent 5,440,635. )
>>
> 
> Technical material to support a contradictory viewpoint to the
> above is in www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-jablon-speke-00.txt.
> The draft is careful to not state feelings or legal conclusions,

After reading the draft, I must respectfully disagree.  Although it 
doesn't state explicit legal conclusions such as "X is covered by patent 
Y", it makes statements of opinion like "X uses techniques from Y (which 
is patented)" or "X is fundamentally different from Y", which, if the 
reader believes these assertions, leads him/her to a corresponding legal 
opinion.  I would suggest that opinions w.r.t. IP be struck from the I-D.

> but SPEKE has been openly licensed and deployed for years
> without using the Lucent patents.

But by that standard, so has SRP.  Has Phoenix (or Integrity Sciences) 
ever requested any IPR statement from Lucent regarding the EKE patents, 
similar to what the IPS WG has gone through the last few months?

> I'm probably the last person to be lecturing about IETF etiquette
> in this regard, but I think it is improper to present unsupported feelings
> and beliefs about patent issues in any standards group discussion.
> Facts are helpful.  Rumors and unsupported opinion are not.

Are "unsupported opinions" proper/improper in an Internet-Draft, though?

> The specific question from <rsaecc@yahoo.com> has been forwarded
> to the appropriate legal people within Phoenix.  However, responding
> to anonymous email is probably not a high priority for them.
> 
> -- David
> 

Tom
-- 
Tom Wu
Principal Software Engineer
Arcot Systems
(408) 969-6124