SORT BY:

LIST ORDER
THREAD
AUTHOR
SUBJECT


SEARCH

IPS HOME


    [Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

    Re: iSCSI: DH-CHAP - Defensive IPR ???



    Bill Strahm wrote:
    > Elizabeth, (and inventors as well)
    > 
    > In a private exchange with David, I hinted that EMC ought to get a 
    > patent on CHAP-DH and give it to the community as a defensive nature
    > so some weasel can't come behind and submarine us later...
    
    One of the reasons I made the patent licensing for SRP royalty-free was 
    precisely as a defensive measure to prevent others from obstructing free 
    implementation.  There is no reason to believe that doing the same for 
    CHAP-DH would result in any different outcome.
    
    Tom
    
    > His reply is that in reality it is David, Uri, and Steve that invented
    > the protocol and so he didn't think the three companies legal teams
    > could ever get together enough to actually patent CHAP-DH.  I would
    > hope that they could, just for defensive reasons...
    > 
    > A good defensive patent beats prior art any day...
    
    > Bill
    > On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 12:20:29PM -0600, Elizabeth G. Rodriguez wrote:
    > 
    >>All,
    >>
    >> 
    >>
    >>Please expect another email, from the Transport ADs, on the topic of
    >>
    >>SRP and intellectual property issues.
    >>
    >> 
    >>
    >>As was discussed both in Minneapolis and over the reflector, there is
    >>
    >>concern over the MUST implement status of SRP, and the group is tasked 
    >>
    >>with the responsibility of evaluating both SRP as well as other
    >>alternatives, 
    >>
    >>to make the best possible choice(s) for the iSCSI authentication
    >>mechanisms.
    >>
    >> 
    >>
    >>Mentioned in Minneapolis was the possibility of CHAP enhanced by use of
    >>a 
    >>
    >>Diffie-Hellman Exchange.  David Black has authored an individual draft
    >>on
    >>
    >>this topic.  The DH-CHAP draft, draft-black-ips-iscsi-dhchap-00.txt has
    >>been
    >>
    >>submitted to the I-D servers and is also available at 
    >>
    >>http://www.ultranet.com/~dlb237/ips/draft-black-ips-iscsi-dhchap-00.txt.
    >>
    >>The draft is an individual submission that the IPS WG is free to
    >>
    >>(quoting from the draft abstract) "adopt, modify, reject, fold,
    >>
    >>spindle, and/or mutilate as it sees fit".  Since David Black will be
    >>
    >>participating in the resulting discussion as an individual and author
    >>
    >>of the draft, and not as a WG co-chair, I will be the WG chair
    >>
    >>responsible for this draft and for determining WG rough consensus
    >>
    >>on this set of issues.
    >>
    >> 
    >>
    >>The goal of this discussion is to determine the appropriate level
    >>
    >>of requirements (MUST/SHOULD/MAY implement) for the inband iSCSI
    >>
    >>authentication mechanisms (SRP and CHAP as specified in the
    >>
    >>iSCSI draft, DH-CHAP as documented above), and more importantly
    >>
    >>to come to consensus on a solid technical rationale for these
    >>
    >>requirement levels.  While I understand the level of frustration
    >>
    >>and impatience with this situation, I have a few requests to make
    >>
    >>of participants in this discussion:
    >>
    >>- Civility and respect for other members of the WG are virtues;
    >>
    >>      please practice these virtues early and often.
    >>
    >>- Discussion of requirements levels (MUST/SHOULD/MAY) in the absence
    >>
    >>      of technical rationale is an invitation to confusion.  Please
    >>
    >>      summarize the technical rationale when advocating a requirements
    >>
    >>      level.
    >>
    >>- Unbounded speculation about possible IPR claims is unproductive
    >>
    >>      Each case in which the IPS WG has taken up discussion of a
    >>
    >>      possible IPR claim has been based on existence of a patent
    >>
    >>      or a publicly-disclosed patent application.  It is only
    >>
    >>      appropriate to discuss possible IPR claims on the list when
    >>
    >>      they meet this criteria.  Those with IPR concerns that do
    >>
    >>      not meet this criteria should contact me directly off the
    >>
    >>      list so that I can determine how to proceed in consultation
    >>
    >>      with the Area Directors.
    >>
    >>Thank you all for your help on these matters.
    >>
    >> 
    >>
    >>Elizabeth Rodriguez
    >>
    >>IPS WG co-chair
    >>
    >> 
    >>
    >>
    
    
    
    -- 
    Tom Wu
    Principal Software Engineer
    Arcot Systems
    (408) 969-6124
    "The Borg?  Sounds Swedish..."
    
    


Home

Last updated: Thu Apr 11 11:18:20 2002
9597 messages in chronological order