Securely Available Credentials (sacred)

Stephen Farrell | 23 Sep 2005 19:26

SACRED IPR - draft mail for Friday


Hi All,

At the Paris meeting [1,2] Lucent and Phoenix agreed to
actions to specify their IPR positions wrt PAK and SPEKE
respectively.

Unfortunately the results so far do not, in our opinion,
represent significant progress.

Essentially, Lucent have re-iterated their license terms for
PAK (part of Planet9's open source license), but any other
implementation would be RAND. To quote their response:

         1) PAK has been implemented as part of the open-source
            PLAN 9 Operating System, whose OSI-certified Lucent
            Public License Version 1.02 is available at
               http://www.cs.bell-labs.com/plan9dist/license.html.
	2) Any other use of IPR associated with PAK will be licenced
            by Lucent under RAND, if it becomes an IETF standard.

Phoenix have indicated that they can offer RF terms, but
only for clients on "standard personal computers" - they
maintain their RAND terms for servers.

We think the above captures the position, but of course
Lucent or Phoenix folks can clarify if we've gotten
something wrong.

Magnus and I have communicated our opinions of these

(Continue reading)

headers

RL 'Bob' Morgan | 6 Oct 2005 19:27

Re: SACRED IPR - draft mail for Friday

Well, so as to provide at least one additional data point:  it is my 
opinion, which I guess is consistent with that of the WG chairs, that a 
standard in this technical space would only be valuable -- ie, only worth 
developing -- if implementations could be written and distributed without 
having to pay license fees.  So given the stated terms neither of these 
technologies is worth building into a standard.  This is very unfortunate, 
since it seems to mean that SACRED won't be able to produce a standard, 
since no appropriate unencumbered technologies appear to exist.

  - RL "Bob" Morgan
    University of Washington and Internet2

---

On Fri, 23 Sep 2005, Stephen Farrell wrote:

> Hi All,
>
> At the Paris meeting [1,2] Lucent and Phoenix agreed to
> actions to specify their IPR positions wrt PAK and SPEKE
> respectively.
>
> Unfortunately the results so far do not, in our opinion,
> represent significant progress.
>
> Essentially, Lucent have re-iterated their license terms for
> PAK (part of Planet9's open source license), but any other
> implementation would be RAND. To quote their response:
>

(Continue reading)

headers

RL 'Bob' Morgan | 6 Oct 2005 19:42

Re: SACRED IPR - draft mail for Friday


> This is very unfortunate, since it seems to mean that SACRED won't be 
> able to produce a standard, since no appropriate unencumbered 
> technologies appear to exist.

A standard using EKE-style technology, that is, as an alternative to 3767.

  - RL "Bob"