RE: iSCSI: Last Call process

[David Jablon <dpj@theworld.com>]

At 05:51 PM 4/4/02 -0500, KRUEGER,MARJORIE (HP-Roseville,ex1) wrote:
>> And if the AD/IESG had said that to me, I'd have asked "Do we have proof
>> that DH-CHAP would not have any IP issues"? ...

At 06:09 PM 4/4/02 -0500, Black_David@emc.com wrote:
>We don't have proof that anything in this WG or any IETF WG is
>free of IP issues, but DH-CHAP is in pretty good shape.  DH has
>no known IP issues, CHAP has no known IP issues, and very little
>else is being invented.

Somehow I thought that patent review was supposedly not a legitimate
IETF standards group activity.  Instead, doesn't the IETF have a clearly
defined substitute for this process, namely the normal RFC 2026
requirements for multiple implementations?

It seems fair to lay out facts, but colorful opinions like "pretty good shape"
seem less appropriate.

>> ... Even if we decided DH-CHAP looks good, it still would require a review
>> process that is longer than the timeframe for iSCSI last call...
>
>That remains to be seen.  As David Jablon said, DH-CHAP is "a combination
>of old tried-and-true methods" (I left out "simple" to avoid an 0.05 fine
>:-)).  ...

Hey, for slightly misquoting me, you can just send me that five cents.
What I said was conditional " ..., if DH-CHAP is a simple combination ...",
in regard to the need for cryptographic review.

To be secure for a specific purpose, likely to be available on RAND terms,
(or, as you've said, to simply "look good"  :-)) are other goals for the
method that we can soon evaluate.

-- David