RE: iSCSI:SRP

[pat_thaler@agilent.com]

David,

I am relatively new to the IETF process, but reading Section 10 of RFC 2026
I don't see any basis for your statement.

RFC 2026 says in part of 10.3.2:

   (C)  Where the IESG knows of rights, or claimed rights under (A), the
      IETF Executive Director shall attempt to obtain from the claimant
      of such rights, a written assurance that upon approval by the IESG
      of the relevant Internet standards track specification(s), any
      party will be able to obtain the right to implement, use and
      distribute the technology or works when implementing, using or
      distributing technology based upon the specific specification(s)
      under openly specified, reasonable, non-discriminatory terms.
      The Working Group proposing the use of the technology with respect
      to which the proprietary rights are claimed may assist the IETF
      Executive Director in this effort.  The results of this procedure
                                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
      shall not affect advancement of a specification along the
      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
      standards track, except that the IESG may defer approval where a
      delay may facilitate the obtaining of such assurances.  The
      results will, however, be recorded by the IETF Executive Director,
      and made available.  The IESG may also direct that a summary of
      the results be included in any RFC published containing the
      specification.

We have gotten the assurances. And what we have is more "rumored" rights
rather than claimed or known rights. Neither Phoenix nor Lucent have claimed
that their patents apply.

We also have a letter from EMC on "the 024 patent" where EMC offers a
license under reasonable and non-discriminatory terms with a grant back. If
you consider a non-free license to be a barrier to smooth progress then we
already have that problem independent of SRP, but that position doesn't seem
to be supported by RFC 2026.

Pat


-----Original Message-----
From: Black_David@emc.com [mailto:Black_David@emc.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2002 4:04 PM
To: ips@ece.cmu.edu
Subject: RE: iSCSI:SRP


> To answer David's question 2 about SRP and DH+Chap: SRP is superior
because
> it is done. The objection to it was based on an IPR uncertainty that has
> been resolved.

Sorry - that IPR uncertainty is not resolved by a long shot.  We are now
in a situation where SRP is considered potentially encumbered in the absence
of "no license needed" or offers of Stanford-like licenses from Lucent and
Phoenix, and I don't view those as realistic possibilities.  That is what
I meant by not being able to turn back the clock.  We have to do the
DH-CHAP analysis.

--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
---------------------------------------------------