|
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: iSCSI: SRP statusDavid Jablon wrote: >>I, David Jablon wrote: >> >>>[draft-jablon-speke-00.txt] is careful to not state feelings or legal conclusions, >>> > > At 08:31 PM 3/27/02 -0800, Tom Wu wrote: > >>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. >> > > Thanks. I'll review those statements, and look into removing any > opinionated remarks. However, I think it's important and helpful to > present facts about these methods to assist people in performing > their own analysis. [...] >>Are "unsupported opinions" proper/improper in an Internet-Draft, though? >> > > What I said applies to drafts too. > If anyone points out specific language of mine that appears to have > crossed this line, either privately or publicly, I'll definitely look into > correcting it. 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. Although I understand the need to justify the existence of an I-D that discusses patented, non-free technology, I submit that an I-D is an inappropriate place to state opinions about IP, even if it is done under the guise of "structural analysis". More to the point, other I-Ds and RFCs, even in areas with IP disputes, like VRRP and the idn drafts, seem to have steered clear of including anything beyond a simple IPR Notice section, as mandated by RFC2026. This is, of course, based on the documents I've managed to dig up so far; I'd be interested in hearing the opinion of someone with more experience in IETF procedure. > > -- David > Tom -- Tom Wu Principal Software Engineer Arcot Systems (408) 969-6124
Home Last updated: Sat Mar 30 12:18:16 2002 9394 messages in chronological order |