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

["Julian Satran" <Julian_Satran@il.ibm.com>]

Elizabeth,

Two things about this exchange:

• it is against the "be factual" rule you yourself have stated for this discussion (rightfully)
• it makes all patent-holders look like a bunch-of-bandits out to get our money.  I suspect that that our society upholds patent laws for a bunch of reason - mostly good (but nothing is perfect)
  
  Let us get back to discuss (and a fast as we can) facts.
  
  Regards,
  Julo
  
  
  

  "Elizabeth Rodriguez" <ElizabethRodriguez@ieee.org> Sent by: owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu 04/11/2002 04:30 AM Please respond to "Elizabeth Rodriguez"

  To:        <bill@strahm.net>, <Elizabeth.G.Rodriguez@123mail.net>         cc:        <ips@ece.cmu.edu>         Subject:        RE: iSCSI: DH-CHAP - Defensive IPR ???

  
  
  Hi Bill,
  
  While I agree with your sentiment here, I know from past experience that
  some companies that do get patents do not like to 'give it away'.
  Enforcing IP licensing is a major business for many companies, so even
  if the companies involved could get together and jointly patent CHAP-DH,
  it could very well backfire -- there is nothing that would say that the
  companies would then freely license the IP...  
  
  Wouldn't it be nice if we lived in an ideal world, where this would not
  even be an issue?
  
  Elizabeth
  
  -----Original Message-----
  From: bill@strahm.net [mailto:bill@strahm.net]
  Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2002 3:32 PM
  To: ElizabethRodriguez@ieee.org; Elizabeth.G.Rodriguez@123mail.net
  Cc: ips@ece.cmu.edu
  Subject: Re: iSCSI: DH-CHAP - Defensive IPR ???
  
  
  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...
  
  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
  >
  >  
  >