RE: iSCSI: New Lucent stmt on SRP

[Black_David@emc.com]

>    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
---------------------------------------------------