From shanna@juniper.net Wed Oct 3 09:41:32 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: nea@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: nea@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1BD221F867B for ; Wed, 3 Oct 2012 09:41:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Nd398tmaeZXD for ; Wed, 3 Oct 2012 09:41:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod7og124.obsmtp.com (exprod7og124.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.26]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0937721F865B for ; Wed, 3 Oct 2012 09:41:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from P-EMHUB03-HQ.jnpr.net ([66.129.224.36]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob124.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUGxqupUDUPbxpjpuZO6O3en6kGxZfqoV@postini.com; Wed, 03 Oct 2012 09:41:31 PDT Received: from P-CLDFE02-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.60) by P-EMHUB03-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.37) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.213.0; Wed, 3 Oct 2012 09:39:17 -0700 Received: from p-emfe01-wf.jnpr.net (172.28.145.24) by p-cldfe02-hq.jnpr.net (172.24.192.60) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.355.2; Wed, 3 Oct 2012 09:39:16 -0700 Received: from EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net ([fe80::1914:3299:33d9:e43b]) by p-emfe01-wf.jnpr.net ([fe80::d0d1:653d:5b91:a123%11]) with mapi; Wed, 3 Oct 2012 12:39:14 -0400 From: Stephen Hanna To: "nea@ietf.org" Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2012 12:39:12 -0400 Thread-Topic: Announcing SCAP Messages for IF-M specification Thread-Index: Ac2hgh5hZ7yICDcAS3u8LJ+Y2hgzJwAAy/dw Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: [Nea] FW: Announcing SCAP Messages for IF-M specification X-BeenThere: nea@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Network Endpoint Assessment discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2012 16:41:32 -0000 Participants in the nea wg may be interested in the announcement below. It's good to see the NEA protocols being used to support the SCAP standards. Thanks, Steve -----Original Message----- From: sacm-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:sacm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Sch= midt, Charles M. Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2012 12:37 PM To: xccdf-dev@nist.gov; oval-developer-list OVAL Developer List/Closed Publ= ic Discussion; Multiple recipients of list; tnc@trustedcomputinggroup.org; = sacm@ietf.org Subject: [sacm] Announcing SCAP Messages for IF-M specification Hello all, I would like to announce that the Trusted Computing Group (TCG) has just released the "SCAP Messages for IF-M" draft specification for public comment. This specification describes a proposed standard for using TCG's Trusted Network Connect (TNC) (and, by extension, IETF's Network Endpoint Assessment (NEA)) to exchange SCAP content and direct SCAP assessments. Our goal with this specification is to bridge the existing communities of SCAP users and TNC users by standardizing the use of SCAP data formats and assessment conventions with TNC network protocols and functional components= . The specification is currently open for public comment. You can download th= e specification at http://www.trustedcomputinggroup.org/resources/tnc_scap_messages_for_ifm. We are especially interested in getting input from vendors and users of bot= h SCAP and TNC as our intent is for this standard to fit with the existing conventions and capabilities of these communities. For those of you attending the IT Security Automation Conference, I will be giving a short overview of this work on Friday at 3:30 in the Trusted Computing & Security Automation track. We have also scheduled a short BoF o= n this work for 3:00 on Thursday in room 350. Comments on the specification can be sent to SCAP-Messages-Comments@trustedcomputinggroup.org. We look forward to your input. Thanks, Charles From ietf-ipr@ietf.org Thu Oct 4 14:41:38 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: nea@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: nea@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2FF51F0CBA; Thu, 4 Oct 2012 14:41:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.377 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.377 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.222, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tfFnJGpo87pM; Thu, 4 Oct 2012 14:41:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 637FD1F0CA5; Thu, 4 Oct 2012 14:41:37 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: IETF Secretariat To: Paul_Sangster@symantec.com, ncamwing@cisco.com X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.34 Message-ID: <20121004214137.1999.87116.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2012 14:41:37 -0700 Cc: nea@ietf.org, turners@ieca.com, ipr-announce@ietf.org Subject: [Nea] IPR Disclosure: Cisco's Statement of IPR Related to draft-ietf-nea-pt-eap-03 X-BeenThere: nea@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Network Endpoint Assessment discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2012 21:41:38 -0000 Dear Paul Sangster, Nancy Cam-Winget: An IPR disclosure that pertains to your Internet-Draft entitled "PT-EAP: Posture Transport (PT) Protocol For EAP Tunnel Methods" (draft-ietf-nea-pt-= eap) was submitted to the IETF Secretariat on 2012-10-04 and has been posted on = the "IETF Page of Intellectual Property Rights Disclosures" (https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1889/). The title of the IPR disclosure is "Cisco's Statement of IPR Related to draft-ietf-nea-pt-eap-03.""); The IETF Secretariat From ietf-ipr@ietf.org Thu Oct 4 14:44:57 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: nea@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: nea@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E18A11E80FE; Thu, 4 Oct 2012 14:44:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.404 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.404 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.195, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9mTgmRgx9Caw; Thu, 4 Oct 2012 14:44:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31EFF1F0CA5; Thu, 4 Oct 2012 14:44:51 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: IETF Secretariat To: Paul_Sangster@symantec.com, ncamwing@cisco.com, jsalowey@cisco.com X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.34 Message-ID: <20121004214451.3466.22760.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2012 14:44:51 -0700 Cc: nea@ietf.org, turners@ieca.com, ipr-announce@ietf.org Subject: [Nea] IPR Disclosure: Cisco's Statement of IPR Related to draft-ietf-nea-pt-tls-07 X-BeenThere: nea@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Network Endpoint Assessment discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2012 21:44:57 -0000 Dear Paul Sangster, Nancy Cam-Winget, Joseph A. Salowey: An IPR disclosure that pertains to your Internet-Draft entitled "PT-TLS: A= TCP- based Posture Transport (PT) Protocol" (draft-ietf-nea-pt-tls) was submitte= d to the IETF Secretariat on 2012-10-04 and has been posted on the "IETF Page of Intellectual Property Rights Disclosures" (https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1890/). The title of the IPR disclosure is "Cisco's Statement of IPR Related to draft-ietf-nea-pt-tls-07.""); The IETF Secretariat From shanna@juniper.net Thu Oct 4 21:24:12 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: nea@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: nea@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F301611E8099 for ; Thu, 4 Oct 2012 21:24:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jHUFPFmot61i for ; Thu, 4 Oct 2012 21:24:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod7og106.obsmtp.com (exprod7og106.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.165]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 919DD11E8091 for ; Thu, 4 Oct 2012 21:24:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from P-EMHUB01-HQ.jnpr.net ([66.129.224.36]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob106.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUG5g6k3cVjh0yUQHGXxBhM5BTxCZKJkO@postini.com; Thu, 04 Oct 2012 21:24:10 PDT Received: from P-CLDFE02-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.60) by P-EMHUB01-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.35) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.213.0; Thu, 4 Oct 2012 21:23:18 -0700 Received: from p-emfe02-wf.jnpr.net (172.28.145.25) by p-cldfe02-hq.jnpr.net (172.24.192.60) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.355.2; Thu, 4 Oct 2012 21:23:17 -0700 Received: from EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net ([fe80::1914:3299:33d9:e43b]) by p-emfe02-wf.jnpr.net ([fe80::c126:c633:d2dc:8090%11]) with mapi; Fri, 5 Oct 2012 00:23:16 -0400 From: Stephen Hanna To: "nea@ietf.org" Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2012 00:23:14 -0400 Thread-Topic: [Nea] IPR Disclosure: Cisco's Statement of IPR Related to draft-ietf-nea-pt-tls-07 Thread-Index: Ac2ieYKtkQ58J1KuR6+JEY3IpCq6LgANErkQ Message-ID: References: <20121004214451.3466.22760.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20121004214451.3466.22760.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Nea] IPR Disclosure: Cisco's Statement of IPR Related to draft-ietf-nea-pt-tls-07 X-BeenThere: nea@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Network Endpoint Assessment discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2012 04:24:12 -0000 IETF Secretariat wrote: > An IPR disclosure that pertains to your Internet-Draft entitled > "PT-TLS: A TCP-based Posture Transport (PT) Protocol" > (draft-ietf-nea-pt-tls) was submitted to the IETF Secretariat > on 2012-10-04 Well, that's a pain in the neck! I'm not happy to see these IPR disclosures come in so late in the process. PT-TLS is already with the IESG and PT-EAP has passed two WGLCs and is almost ready to go to the IESG. This IPR should have been disclosed much earlier, if at all possible. At this time, I would encourage nea participants to read (or re-read) RFC 3979, which describes how we handle IPR disclosures in IETF. Also read the IPR disclosures to see what's included in the patents in question and what IPR licensing terms are being offered. I would ask Cisco to please provide a link to the actual patent application (since I guess there is no patent yet and I can't find the patent application) so that we can see what technology is claimed to be covered. Thanks, Steve > -----Original Message----- > From: nea-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:nea-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > IETF Secretariat > Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2012 5:45 PM > To: Paul_Sangster@symantec.com; ncamwing@cisco.com; jsalowey@cisco.com > Cc: nea@ietf.org; turners@ieca.com; ipr-announce@ietf.org > Subject: [Nea] IPR Disclosure: Cisco's Statement of IPR Related to > draft-ietf-nea-pt-tls-07 >=20 >=20 > Dear Paul Sangster, Nancy Cam-Winget, Joseph A. Salowey: >=20 > An IPR disclosure that pertains to your Internet-Draft entitled "PT- > TLS: A TCP- > based Posture Transport (PT) Protocol" (draft-ietf-nea-pt-tls) was > submitted to > the IETF Secretariat on 2012-10-04 and has been posted on the "IETF > Page of > Intellectual Property Rights Disclosures" > (https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1890/). The title of the IPR > disclosure is > "Cisco's Statement of IPR Related to draft-ietf-nea-pt-tls-07.""); >=20 > The IETF Secretariat >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Nea mailing list > Nea@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nea From tglassey@earthlink.net Fri Oct 5 07:22:54 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: nea@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: nea@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A6E021F86D1; Fri, 5 Oct 2012 07:22:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.644 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.644 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.045, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lxI+hGsR4dpA; Fri, 5 Oct 2012 07:22:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from elasmtp-kukur.atl.sa.earthlink.net (elasmtp-kukur.atl.sa.earthlink.net [209.86.89.65]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BD5421F86CA; Fri, 5 Oct 2012 07:22:53 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=earthlink.net; b=Mbcu0Q/rb6i1XVvkLg7zVa3jgm8BZCR/s1DFVErc7E1YnulO6C5430+vUrcAlf/3; h=Received:Message-ID:Date:From:User-Agent:MIME-Version:To:CC:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP; Received: from [67.180.133.21] (helo=[192.168.15.2]) by elasmtp-kukur.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1TK8nk-0002e1-HK; Fri, 05 Oct 2012 10:22:52 -0400 Message-ID: <506EED36.1080700@earthlink.net> Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2012 07:22:46 -0700 From: tglassey User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:13.0) Gecko/20120614 Thunderbird/13.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Stephen Hanna References: <20121004214451.3466.22760.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ELNK-Trace: 01b7a7e171bdf5911aa676d7e74259b7b3291a7d08dfec791b3cd1ea37db7340ce84c3cf4e18a5e7350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c X-Originating-IP: 67.180.133.21 Cc: "nea@ietf.org" , ietf , IPR@ietf.org Subject: [Nea] Proposed BCP addition - No-Late-Patent-Filing Rights - contract provision for BCP/NoteWell - Re: IPR Disclosure: Cisco's Statement of IPR Related to draft-ietf-nea-pt-tls-07 X-BeenThere: nea@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Network Endpoint Assessment discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2012 14:22:55 -0000 On 10/4/2012 9:23 PM, Stephen Hanna wrote: > IETF Secretariat wrote: >> An IPR disclosure that pertains to your Internet-Draft entitled >> "PT-TLS: A TCP-based Posture Transport (PT) Protocol" >> (draft-ietf-nea-pt-tls) was submitted to the IETF Secretariat >> on 2012-10-04 > Well, that's a pain in the neck! Actually its much more than that. Its why full disclosure at the start of a process of who the parties legally represent and what their interests in the standard process are so that full disclosure is there. But fixing this process is actually VERY SIMPLE... Just a 'component of an updated BCP which contractually commits that IETF members and their sponsors may not engage in submarining' its actually pretty simple to stop this... you folks just have to want to. The propose text could look something like: " Whereas - all parties working in the IETF have an open collaboration agreement, it is agreed that any Intellectual Properties developed by a commercial sponsor to the IETF will have full disclosure of their licensing provisions prior to any development taking place in the IETF and that those rights must be properly disclosed to all parties in the interest of open collaboration and global standards development." "Further any party formally participating or supplying IP to these initiative waves any rights to change those access rights and disclosure requirements by participating in the process after the development commences on any initiative". Todd > I'm not happy to see these > IPR disclosures come in so late in the process. PT-TLS is > already with the IESG and PT-EAP has passed two WGLCs and > is almost ready to go to the IESG. This IPR should have > been disclosed much earlier, if at all possible. > > At this time, I would encourage nea participants to read > (or re-read) RFC 3979, which describes how we handle IPR > disclosures in IETF. Also read the IPR disclosures to see > what's included in the patents in question and what IPR > licensing terms are being offered. > > I would ask Cisco to please provide a link to the actual > patent application (since I guess there is no patent yet > and I can't find the patent application) so that we can > see what technology is claimed to be covered. > > Thanks, > > Steve > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: nea-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:nea-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of >> IETF Secretariat >> Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2012 5:45 PM >> To: Paul_Sangster@symantec.com; ncamwing@cisco.com; jsalowey@cisco.com >> Cc: nea@ietf.org; turners@ieca.com; ipr-announce@ietf.org >> Subject: [Nea] IPR Disclosure: Cisco's Statement of IPR Related to >> draft-ietf-nea-pt-tls-07 >> >> >> Dear Paul Sangster, Nancy Cam-Winget, Joseph A. Salowey: >> >> An IPR disclosure that pertains to your Internet-Draft entitled "PT- >> TLS: A TCP- >> based Posture Transport (PT) Protocol" (draft-ietf-nea-pt-tls) was >> submitted to >> the IETF Secretariat on 2012-10-04 and has been posted on the "IETF >> Page of >> Intellectual Property Rights Disclosures" >> (https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1890/). The title of the IPR >> disclosure is >> "Cisco's Statement of IPR Related to draft-ietf-nea-pt-tls-07.""); >> >> The IETF Secretariat >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Nea mailing list >> Nea@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nea > _______________________________________________ > Nea mailing list > Nea@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nea > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 2013.0.2677 / Virus Database: 2591/5808 - Release Date: 10/03/12 > > -- Regards TSG "Ex-Cruce-Leo" //Confidential Mailing - Please destroy this if you are not the intended recipient. From shanna@juniper.net Mon Oct 8 17:50:04 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: nea@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: nea@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2B5D11E80DF for ; Mon, 8 Oct 2012 17:50:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id f8ObF3i680XS for ; Mon, 8 Oct 2012 17:50:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod7og119.obsmtp.com (exprod7og119.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.16]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CAB711E809B for ; Mon, 8 Oct 2012 17:50:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from P-EMHUB03-HQ.jnpr.net ([66.129.224.36]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob119.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUHN0u8ANWAkO4du0tRV0SeukznZvWkyg@postini.com; Mon, 08 Oct 2012 17:50:04 PDT Received: from p-emfe02-wf.jnpr.net (172.28.145.25) by P-EMHUB03-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.37) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.213.0; Mon, 8 Oct 2012 17:48:50 -0700 Received: from EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net ([fe80::1914:3299:33d9:e43b]) by p-emfe02-wf.jnpr.net ([fe80::c126:c633:d2dc:8090%11]) with mapi; Mon, 8 Oct 2012 20:48:48 -0400 From: Stephen Hanna To: "nea@ietf.org" Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2012 20:48:47 -0400 Thread-Topic: Deciding How to Proceed with NEA Drafts Thread-Index: Ac2ieYKtkQ58J1KuR6+JEY3IpCq6LgANErkQAMHjfjA= Message-ID: References: <20121004214451.3466.22760.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: [Nea] Deciding How to Proceed with NEA Drafts X-BeenThere: nea@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Network Endpoint Assessment discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2012 00:50:05 -0000 I have been told that we're not likely to get any more information about the patent application named in Cisco's IPR disclosure related to NEA so... We must now decide how to proceed with PT-TLS and PT-EAP. Since you have read RFC 3979, you will know that it is not our job to comment on the validity of the IPR or of the licensing terms. We're not lawyers. Arguing about patent law is a waste of time for us. Instead, the real question for us is: * Should we proceed with standardizing PT-TLS and PT-EAP in their current form (subject to the normal edits that will be made during the standardization process)? Please respond to this email with your opinions on this question. Feel free to include your arguments pro or con. Due to the complexity of this matter, I will allow two weeks for this consensus check. Therefore, please respond by Monday, October 22 at 9 PM EDT. At that time, I'll declare a consensus if there is one. Thanks, Steve From tglassey@earthlink.net Mon Oct 8 21:19:14 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: nea@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: nea@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3DE01F0C54 for ; Mon, 8 Oct 2012 21:19:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.64 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.64 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.041, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qXSxjzGoJXVp for ; Mon, 8 Oct 2012 21:19:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from elasmtp-dupuy.atl.sa.earthlink.net (elasmtp-dupuy.atl.sa.earthlink.net [209.86.89.62]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 073A51F0420 for ; Mon, 8 Oct 2012 21:19:13 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=earthlink.net; b=U0sxyNvGYfK8re3dm7fJzyIecpxNN4U3BtYhZA+Vz3nKGZIz0+nZN25cIRLAwpDQ; h=Received:Message-ID:Date:From:User-Agent:MIME-Version:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP; Received: from [67.180.133.21] (helo=[192.168.15.2]) by elasmtp-dupuy.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1TLRHk-00062o-HT for nea@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Oct 2012 00:19:12 -0400 Message-ID: <5073A5BE.6040703@earthlink.net> Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2012 21:19:10 -0700 From: tglassey User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:13.0) Gecko/20120614 Thunderbird/13.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: nea@ietf.org References: <20121004214451.3466.22760.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ELNK-Trace: 01b7a7e171bdf5911aa676d7e74259b7b3291a7d08dfec790329695eb3e0fcf0c7cc90172d90a967350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c X-Originating-IP: 67.180.133.21 Subject: Re: [Nea] Deciding How to Proceed with NEA Drafts X-BeenThere: nea@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Network Endpoint Assessment discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2012 04:19:14 -0000 On 10/8/2012 5:48 PM, Stephen Hanna wrote: > I have been told that we're not likely to get any more > information about the patent application named in Cisco's > IPR disclosure related to NEA so... > > We must now decide how to proceed with PT-TLS and PT-EAP. Try this one... published 9/28/2012. http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.htm&r=2&f=G&l=50&d=PTXT&p=1&p=1&S1=cisco&OS=cisco&RS=cisco > Since you have read RFC 3979, you will know that it is not > our job to comment on the validity of the IPR or of the > licensing terms. We're not lawyers. Arguing about patent > law is a waste of time for us. > > Instead, the real question for us is: > > * Should we proceed with standardizing PT-TLS and PT-EAP > in their current form (subject to the normal edits that > will be made during the standardization process)? > > Please respond to this email with your opinions on this > question. Feel free to include your arguments pro or con. > > Due to the complexity of this matter, I will allow two > weeks for this consensus check. Therefore, please respond > by Monday, October 22 at 9 PM EDT. At that time, I'll > declare a consensus if there is one. > > Thanks, > > Steve > > _______________________________________________ > Nea mailing list > Nea@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nea > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 2013.0.2677 / Virus Database: 2591/5817 - Release Date: 10/08/12 > > -- Regards TSG "Ex-Cruce-Leo" //Confidential Mailing - Please destroy this if you are not the intended recipient. From tglassey@earthlink.net Mon Oct 8 21:21:08 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: nea@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: nea@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FBBB11E80DF for ; Mon, 8 Oct 2012 21:21:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.639 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.639 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.040, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7FTA-53XrOmW for ; Mon, 8 Oct 2012 21:21:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from elasmtp-kukur.atl.sa.earthlink.net (elasmtp-kukur.atl.sa.earthlink.net [209.86.89.65]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABEF311E80D1 for ; Mon, 8 Oct 2012 21:21:07 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=earthlink.net; b=RscD/+PyqqAippio4Hxdpgez5mShXVx9NvjZbrUxTsiYS1HMgiBxlsOXGB3lIJ23; h=Received:Message-ID:Date:From:User-Agent:MIME-Version:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP; Received: from [67.180.133.21] (helo=[192.168.15.2]) by elasmtp-kukur.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1TLRJa-0004RN-On for nea@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Oct 2012 00:21:06 -0400 Message-ID: <5073A630.2040805@earthlink.net> Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2012 21:21:04 -0700 From: tglassey User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:13.0) Gecko/20120614 Thunderbird/13.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: nea@ietf.org References: <20121004214451.3466.22760.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ELNK-Trace: 01b7a7e171bdf5911aa676d7e74259b7b3291a7d08dfec79208276800651bb5c72433849bd838ca3350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c X-Originating-IP: 67.180.133.21 Subject: Re: [Nea] Deciding How to Proceed with NEA Drafts - X-BeenThere: nea@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Network Endpoint Assessment discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2012 04:21:08 -0000 On 10/8/2012 5:48 PM, Stephen Hanna wrote: > I have been told that we're not likely to get any more > information about the patent application named in Cisco's > IPR disclosure related to NEA so... > > We must now decide how to proceed with PT-TLS and PT-EAP. oops - posturing... http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PTXT&p=1&p=1&S1=cisco&OS=cisco&RS=cisco > > Since you have read RFC 3979, you will know that it is not > our job to comment on the validity of the IPR or of the > licensing terms. We're not lawyers. Arguing about patent > law is a waste of time for us. > > Instead, the real question for us is: > > * Should we proceed with standardizing PT-TLS and PT-EAP > in their current form (subject to the normal edits that > will be made during the standardization process)? > > Please respond to this email with your opinions on this > question. Feel free to include your arguments pro or con. > > Due to the complexity of this matter, I will allow two > weeks for this consensus check. Therefore, please respond > by Monday, October 22 at 9 PM EDT. At that time, I'll > declare a consensus if there is one. > > Thanks, > > Steve > > _______________________________________________ > Nea mailing list > Nea@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nea > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 2013.0.2677 / Virus Database: 2591/5817 - Release Date: 10/08/12 > > -- Regards TSG "Ex-Cruce-Leo" //Confidential Mailing - Please destroy this if you are not the intended recipient. From shanna@juniper.net Tue Oct 9 01:46:19 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: nea@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: nea@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08DE521F8864 for ; Tue, 9 Oct 2012 01:46:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id v0ysbMAFIBRD for ; Tue, 9 Oct 2012 01:46:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod7og105.obsmtp.com (exprod7og105.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.163]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F85421F8863 for ; Tue, 9 Oct 2012 01:46:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from P-EMHUB02-HQ.jnpr.net ([66.129.224.36]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob105.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUHPkV8DSZsX0DlmjvekAfiSroJJxdFmq@postini.com; Tue, 09 Oct 2012 01:46:16 PDT Received: from P-CLDFE01-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.59) by P-EMHUB02-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.36) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.213.0; Tue, 9 Oct 2012 01:45:52 -0700 Received: from p-emfe02-wf.jnpr.net (172.28.145.25) by p-cldfe01-hq.jnpr.net (172.24.192.59) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.355.2; Tue, 9 Oct 2012 01:45:51 -0700 Received: from EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net ([fe80::1914:3299:33d9:e43b]) by p-emfe02-wf.jnpr.net ([fe80::c126:c633:d2dc:8090%11]) with mapi; Tue, 9 Oct 2012 04:45:51 -0400 From: Stephen Hanna To: tglassey Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2012 04:45:49 -0400 Thread-Topic: [Nea] Deciding How to Proceed with NEA Drafts - Thread-Index: Ac2l1YTokpbrj9eUQYSa5Z5J7M4/OQAI78Dg Message-ID: References: <20121004214451.3466.22760.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <5073A630.2040805@earthlink.net> In-Reply-To: <5073A630.2040805@earthlink.net> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "nea@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Nea] Deciding How to Proceed with NEA Drafts - X-BeenThere: nea@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Network Endpoint Assessment discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2012 08:46:19 -0000 Todd, While I appreciate your attempts to help, I have it on good authority that none of the links that you have sent are links to the IPR in question and that this IPR is not on the web. All WG members, please do not post any more possible links to the IPR in question. If you find something like this and feel that you must report it, send it to me. I'll investigate. Believe me, I would love to find a public link to the IPR. However, I have been convinced that this is not possible, at least for some rather extended period of time. Therefore, we must make our decision without having access to the IPR. We do have access to the licensing terms, which are at https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1889/ https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1890/ Please review these licensing terms and use that information to decide how to respond to this question: > > * Should we proceed with standardizing PT-TLS and PT-EAP > > in their current form (subject to the normal edits that > > will be made during the standardization process)? Thanks for your help in reaching consensus on this important matter. Our customers and employers are counting on us to make the right decision. BTW, I am going to remain publicly neutral on this matter so that we can have an impartial Working Group chair to judge consensus and handle process issues. Thanks, Steve > -----Original Message----- > From: nea-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:nea-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > tglassey > Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 12:21 AM > To: nea@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Nea] Deciding How to Proceed with NEA Drafts - >=20 > On 10/8/2012 5:48 PM, Stephen Hanna wrote: > > I have been told that we're not likely to get any more > > information about the patent application named in Cisco's > > IPR disclosure related to NEA so... > > > > We must now decide how to proceed with PT-TLS and PT-EAP. >=20 > oops - posturing... >=20 > http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph- > Parser?Sect1=3DPTO2&Sect2=3DHITOFF&u=3D%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch- > adv.htm&r=3D1&f=3DG&l=3D50&d=3DPTXT&p=3D1&p=3D1&S1=3Dcisco&OS=3Dcisco&RS= =3Dcisco > > > > Since you have read RFC 3979, you will know that it is not > > our job to comment on the validity of the IPR or of the > > licensing terms. We're not lawyers. Arguing about patent > > law is a waste of time for us. > > > > Instead, the real question for us is: > > > > * Should we proceed with standardizing PT-TLS and PT-EAP > > in their current form (subject to the normal edits that > > will be made during the standardization process)? > > > > Please respond to this email with your opinions on this > > question. Feel free to include your arguments pro or con. > > > > Due to the complexity of this matter, I will allow two > > weeks for this consensus check. Therefore, please respond > > by Monday, October 22 at 9 PM EDT. At that time, I'll > > declare a consensus if there is one. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Steve > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Nea mailing list > > Nea@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nea > > > > > > ----- > > No virus found in this message. > > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > > Version: 2013.0.2677 / Virus Database: 2591/5817 - Release Date: > 10/08/12 > > > > >=20 >=20 > -- > Regards TSG > "Ex-Cruce-Leo" >=20 > //Confidential Mailing - Please destroy this if you are not the > intended recipient. >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Nea mailing list > Nea@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nea From aland@deployingradius.com Tue Oct 9 06:25:42 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: nea@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: nea@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 585E911E810A for ; Tue, 9 Oct 2012 06:25:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id o4tAlbnXx3mC for ; Tue, 9 Oct 2012 06:25:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from power.freeradius.org (power.freeradius.org [88.190.25.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB06411E8106 for ; Tue, 9 Oct 2012 06:25:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by power.freeradius.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F4512240B9C; Tue, 9 Oct 2012 15:25:41 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at power.freeradius.org Received: from power.freeradius.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (power.freeradius.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lBSLUSmDS3Qa; Tue, 9 Oct 2012 15:25:41 +0200 (CEST) Received: from Thor.local (206-47-95-94.dsl.ncf.ca [206.47.95.94]) by power.freeradius.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AF38B224070E; Tue, 9 Oct 2012 15:25:40 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <507425F6.8020105@deployingradius.com> Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2012 09:26:14 -0400 From: Alan DeKok User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (Macintosh/20100228) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Stephen Hanna References: <20121004214451.3466.22760.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "nea@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Nea] Deciding How to Proceed with NEA Drafts X-BeenThere: nea@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Network Endpoint Assessment discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2012 13:25:42 -0000 Stephen Hanna wrote: > Instead, the real question for us is: > > * Should we proceed with standardizing PT-TLS and PT-EAP > in their current form (subject to the normal edits that > will be made during the standardization process)? One question I would have is can we avoid the IPR by changing PT-TLS and PT-EAP. Since we don't know what the IPR is, however, that's impossible to answer. > Please respond to this email with your opinions on this > question. Feel free to include your arguments pro or con. The terms seem reasonable, though I'm not a lawyer. I'm OK with proceeding as-is. Alan DeKok. From tglassey@earthlink.net Tue Oct 9 06:46:32 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: nea@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: nea@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B29F721F859A for ; Tue, 9 Oct 2012 06:46:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.337 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.337 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.338, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_61=0.6] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id B3fTeivnf7fs for ; Tue, 9 Oct 2012 06:46:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net (elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net [209.86.89.66]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0465521F8703 for ; Tue, 9 Oct 2012 06:46:31 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=earthlink.net; b=BPh9B1d4ZwKaV5aS/lHiKyFXED5xc9A2sc6MilIUH6bg9sVDWzg/qgkphhkZ7q0p; h=Received:Message-ID:Date:From:User-Agent:MIME-Version:To:CC:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP; Received: from [67.180.133.21] (helo=[192.168.15.2]) by elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1TLa8k-0007I8-Bw; Tue, 09 Oct 2012 09:46:30 -0400 Message-ID: <50742AB5.2080309@earthlink.net> Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2012 06:46:29 -0700 From: tglassey User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:13.0) Gecko/20120614 Thunderbird/13.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Stephen Hanna References: <20121004214451.3466.22760.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <5073A630.2040805@earthlink.net> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ELNK-Trace: 01b7a7e171bdf5911aa676d7e74259b7b3291a7d08dfec797744ded2cf80a91993aabd50f6e7630b350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c X-Originating-IP: 67.180.133.21 Cc: "nea@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Nea] Deciding How to Proceed with NEA Drafts - X-BeenThere: nea@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Network Endpoint Assessment discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2012 13:46:32 -0000 On 10/9/2012 1:45 AM, Stephen Hanna wrote: > Todd, > > While I appreciate your attempts to help, I have it on good > authority that none of the links that you have sent are links > to the IPR in question and that this IPR is not on the web. My apologies for the bad link... > > All WG members, please do not post any more possible links > to the IPR in question. If you find something like this and > feel that you must report it, send it to me. I'll investigate. > > Believe me, I would love to find a public link to the IPR. > However, I have been convinced that this is not possible, > at least for some rather extended period of time. Therefore, > we must make our decision without having access to the IPR. > We do have access to the licensing terms, which are at > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1889/ > https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1890/ I dont think you can make this decision. I think NEA is dead... or you can formally embrace commercial standards and its pretty simple. You folks told me for years you would not support commercial standards practices where a company asked for a commercial standard to be created. Here you are faced with one of those. I actually think this is the one - the instance where you have to come to grips with the real issues here - i.e. whether formal membership is necessary and a disclosure process about every participants goals and actions in a standard practice effort before the other parties contribute IP to what they believe is an open access program which turns out to be a patent fiasco.n I actually applaud Cisco's IPR statement on this perhaps it will force clarification of the GSO and its transparency requirements finally. Otherwise - rather than killing NEA I suggest you continue and give Big C the patented Standard they want. Todd > > Please review these licensing terms and use that information > to decide how to respond to this question: > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 2013.0.2677 / Virus Database: 2591/5817 - Release Date: 10/08/12 > > > -- Regards TSG "Ex-Cruce-Leo" //Confidential Mailing - Please destroy this if you are not the intended recipient. From blueroofmusic@gmail.com Tue Oct 9 17:50:57 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: nea@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: nea@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C17921F855F for ; Tue, 9 Oct 2012 17:50:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.048 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.048 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.550, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id q1e7PHWETKeh for ; Tue, 9 Oct 2012 17:50:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lb0-f172.google.com (mail-lb0-f172.google.com [209.85.217.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48A8B21F855E for ; Tue, 9 Oct 2012 17:50:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lb0-f172.google.com with SMTP id k13so39216lbo.31 for ; Tue, 09 Oct 2012 17:50:55 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=qvL/6XpjxThM80iCB43O2ObkuFWN9W8bQ7ygCbpkjP0=; b=KdJEveozouYy6fbOC+XUHLAoHKKRylZvfIzv59Zxoi87jIll2m1HeqOh1J28jNq81q LfhTBZZg7OQeZWwBQnKLmVAiBD/1A/WycBYW+G8VlMIpM6U5rR0/kcduYAMjZEaj0O73 23juzwjDT6q5lIF7cGB0bG5pw4w8BJWKw3RSn/Mq4unmlqgQcbnP9FEiHxBb3YjV7In2 Y+KccsKLsx02c5K5Y3XhadcH/fDVGh0FN2AGjUsX++yqEW+rnRf0s6neG9DuX5qZ86Yt txzwn+8q2l8yQseLTLFQqKmxGhSbbgNaTGPUZHZ1lc7BoBdO9zXSH1Ad4TH6SAIhtmg0 rhRA== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.152.109.145 with SMTP id hs17mr18321774lab.5.1349830255008; Tue, 09 Oct 2012 17:50:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.112.127.228 with HTTP; Tue, 9 Oct 2012 17:50:54 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20121004214451.3466.22760.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2012 20:50:54 -0400 Message-ID: From: Ira McDonald To: Stephen Hanna , Ira McDonald Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec54ee77cdb5bdd04cba9d815 Cc: "nea@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Nea] Deciding How to Proceed with NEA Drafts X-BeenThere: nea@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Network Endpoint Assessment discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 00:50:57 -0000 --bcaec54ee77cdb5bdd04cba9d815 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hi NEA folks, Speaking as a non-lawyer, the licensing terms are apparently reasonable (whatever the IPR involves). I favor proceeding with the IETF standardization of PT-TLS and PT-EAP. Cheers, - Ira Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect) Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WG Secretary - IEEE-ISTO Printer Working Group Co-Chair - IEEE-ISTO PWG IPP WG Co-Chair - TCG Trusted Mobility Solutions WG Chair - TCG Embedded Systems Hardcopy SG IETF Designated Expert - IPP & Printer MIB Blue Roof Music/High North Inc http://sites.google.com/site/blueroofmusic http://sites.google.com/site/highnorthinc mailto:blueroofmusic@gmail.com Winter 579 Park Place Saline, MI 48176 734-944-0094 Summer PO Box 221 Grand Marais, MI 49839 906-494-2434 Temporary Cabin *** 2012 only *** 906-494-2523 On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 8:48 PM, Stephen Hanna wrote: > I have been told that we're not likely to get any more > information about the patent application named in Cisco's > IPR disclosure related to NEA so... > > We must now decide how to proceed with PT-TLS and PT-EAP. > > Since you have read RFC 3979, you will know that it is not > our job to comment on the validity of the IPR or of the > licensing terms. We're not lawyers. Arguing about patent > law is a waste of time for us. > > Instead, the real question for us is: > > * Should we proceed with standardizing PT-TLS and PT-EAP > in their current form (subject to the normal edits that > will be made during the standardization process)? > > Please respond to this email with your opinions on this > question. Feel free to include your arguments pro or con. > > Due to the complexity of this matter, I will allow two > weeks for this consensus check. Therefore, please respond > by Monday, October 22 at 9 PM EDT. At that time, I'll > declare a consensus if there is one. > > Thanks, > > Steve > > _______________________________________________ > Nea mailing list > Nea@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nea > --bcaec54ee77cdb5bdd04cba9d815 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi NEA folks,

Speaking as a non-lawyer, the licensing terms are appa= rently
reasonable (whatever the IPR involves).

I favor proceeding= with the IETF standardization of PT-TLS
and PT-EAP.

Cheers,
- Ira


Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)=
Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WG
Secretary - IEEE-ISTO Prin= ter Working Group
Co-Chair - IEEE-ISTO PWG IPP WG
Co-Chair - TCG Trus= ted Mobility Solutions WG
Chair - TCG Embedded Systems Hardcopy SG
IETF Designated Expert - IPP &a= mp; Printer MIB
Blue Roof Music/High North Inc
http://sites.google.com/site/blueroofmusic
http://sites.google.com/site/highnorthincmailto:bluer= oofmusic@gmail.com
Winter=A0 579 Park Place=A0 Saline, MI=A0 48176=A0 734-944-0094
Summer= =A0 PO Box 221=A0 Grand Marais, MI 49839=A0 906-494-2434
Temporary Cabin= *** 2012 only *** 906-494-2523
=


On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 8:48 PM, Stephen Hann= a <shanna@juniper.net> wrote:
I have been told that we're not likely to get any more
information about the patent application named in Cisco's
IPR disclosure related to NEA so...

We must now decide how to proceed with PT-TLS and PT-EAP.

Since you have read RFC 3979, you will know that it is not
our job to comment on the validity of the IPR or of the
licensing terms. We're not lawyers. Arguing about patent
law is a waste of time for us.

Instead, the real question for us is:

* Should we proceed with standardizing PT-TLS and PT-EAP
=A0 in their current form (subject to the normal edits that
=A0 will be made during the standardization process)?

Please respond to this email with your opinions on this
question. Feel free to include your arguments pro or con.

Due to the complexity of this matter, I will allow two
weeks for this consensus check. Therefore, please respond
by Monday, October 22 at 9 PM EDT. At that time, I'll
declare a consensus if there is one.

Thanks,

Steve

_______________________________________________
Nea mailing list
Nea@ietf.org
htt= ps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nea

--bcaec54ee77cdb5bdd04cba9d815-- From Kent_Landfield@mcafee.com Tue Oct 9 18:06:24 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: nea@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: nea@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6954E1F0C5C for ; Tue, 9 Oct 2012 18:06:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lDnP6m-PSKFP for ; Tue, 9 Oct 2012 18:06:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dalsmrelay2.nai.com (dalsmrelay2.nai.com [205.227.136.216]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC6961F0C71 for ; Tue, 9 Oct 2012 18:06:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from DALEXHT2.corp.nai.org (unknown [10.64.5.52]) by dalsmrelay2.nai.com with smtp id 64f8_001b_7a22b716_827a_472d_9486_4b4346b10914; Tue, 09 Oct 2012 20:06:06 -0500 Received: from AMERDALEXMB1.corp.nai.org ([fe80::387d:3d79:ad3b:b517]) by DALEXHT2.corp.nai.org ([::1]) with mapi; Tue, 9 Oct 2012 20:03:21 -0500 From: To: , Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2012 20:04:34 -0500 Thread-Topic: [Nea] Deciding How to Proceed with NEA Drafts Thread-Index: Ac2mgwpam4YabPROQTSPkc9jpp4hKA== Message-ID: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.3.120616 acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_CC9A33BF3DF4Dkentlandfieldmcafeecom_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: nea@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Nea] Deciding How to Proceed with NEA Drafts X-BeenThere: nea@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Network Endpoint Assessment discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 01:06:24 -0000 --_000_CC9A33BF3DF4Dkentlandfieldmcafeecom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable +1 Kent Landfield McAfee | An Intel Company Direct: +1.972.963.7096 Mobile: +1.817.637.8026 Web: www.mcafee.com From: Ira McDonald = > Date: Tuesday, October 9, 2012 7:50 PM To: Stephen Hanna >, Ira McDo= nald > Cc: "nea@ietf.org" > Subject: Re: [Nea] Deciding How to Proceed with NEA Drafts Hi NEA folks, Speaking as a non-lawyer, the licensing terms are apparently reasonable (whatever the IPR involves). I favor proceeding with the IETF standardization of PT-TLS and PT-EAP. Cheers, - Ira Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect) Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WG Secretary - IEEE-ISTO Printer Working Group Co-Chair - IEEE-ISTO PWG IPP WG Co-Chair - TCG Trusted Mobility Solutions WG Chair - TCG Embedded Systems Hardcopy SG IETF Designated Expert - IPP & Printer MIB Blue Roof Music/High North Inc http://sites.google.com/site/blueroofmusic http://sites.google.com/site/highnorthinc mailto:blueroofmusic@gmail.com Winter 579 Park Place Saline, MI 48176 734-944-0094 Summer PO Box 221 Grand Marais, MI 49839 906-494-2434 Temporary Cabin *** 2012 only *** 906-494-2523 On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 8:48 PM, Stephen Hanna > wrote: I have been told that we're not likely to get any more information about the patent application named in Cisco's IPR disclosure related to NEA so... We must now decide how to proceed with PT-TLS and PT-EAP. Since you have read RFC 3979, you will know that it is not our job to comment on the validity of the IPR or of the licensing terms. We're not lawyers. Arguing about patent law is a waste of time for us. Instead, the real question for us is: * Should we proceed with standardizing PT-TLS and PT-EAP in their current form (subject to the normal edits that will be made during the standardization process)? Please respond to this email with your opinions on this question. Feel free to include your arguments pro or con. Due to the complexity of this matter, I will allow two weeks for this consensus check. Therefore, please respond by Monday, October 22 at 9 PM EDT. At that time, I'll declare a consensus if there is one. Thanks, Steve _______________________________________________ Nea mailing list Nea@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nea --_000_CC9A33BF3DF4Dkentlandfieldmcafeecom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
+1

Kent Landfield

McA= fee | An Intel Company
Direct: +1.972.963.7096 
Mobile:= +1.817.637.8026
Web: www.mcafee.com

From: Ira McDonald <= blueroofmusic@gmail.com>
Date: <= /span> Tuesday, October 9, 2012 7:50 PM
To: Stephen Hanna <shanna= @juniper.net>, Ira McDonald <blueroofmusic@gmail.com>
= Cc: "nea@ietf.org" <nea@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Nea] Deciding How to Proceed with NEA Drafts

=
Hi NEA folks,

Speaking as a non-lawyer, the licensing terms are apparently
reasonable (whatever the IPR involves).

I favor proceeding with the IETF standardization of PT-TLS
and PT-EAP.

Cheers,
- Ira


Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WG
Secretary - IEEE-ISTO Printer Working Group
Co-Chair - IEEE-ISTO PWG IPP WG
Co-Chair - TCG Trusted Mobility Solutions WG
Chair - TCG Embedded Systems Hardcopy SG
IETF Designated Expert - IPP & Printer MIB
Blue Roof Music/High North Inc
http://sites= .google.com/site/blueroofmusic
http://si= tes.google.com/site/highnorthinc
mailto:blueroo= fmusic@gmail.com
Winter  579 Park Place  Saline, MI  48176  734-944-0094=
Summer  PO Box 221  Grand Marais, MI 49839  906-494-2434
= Temporary Cabin *** 2012 only *** 906-494-2523


On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 8:48 PM, Stephen Hanna <shanna@juniper.net>= wrote:
I have been told that we're not likely to get any more
information about the patent application named in Cisco's
IPR disclosure related to NEA so...

We must now decide how to proceed with PT-TLS and PT-EAP.

Since you have read RFC 3979, you will know that it is not
our job to comment on the validity of the IPR or of the
licensing terms. We're not lawyers. Arguing about patent
law is a waste of time for us.

Instead, the real question for us is:

* Should we proceed with standardizing PT-TLS and PT-EAP
  in their current form (subject to the normal edits that
  will be made during the standardization process)?

Please respond to this email with your opinions on this
question. Feel free to include your arguments pro or con.

Due to the complexity of this matter, I will allow two
weeks for this consensus check. Therefore, please respond
by Monday, October 22 at 9 PM EDT. At that time, I'll
declare a consensus if there is one.

Thanks,

Steve

_______________________________________________
Nea mailing list
Nea@ietf.org
https:= //www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nea

--_000_CC9A33BF3DF4Dkentlandfieldmcafeecom_-- From rturner@amalfisystems.com Wed Oct 10 01:49:08 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: nea@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: nea@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 154D421F86EA for ; Wed, 10 Oct 2012 01:49:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.001, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KsEOuHKh24lB for ; Wed, 10 Oct 2012 01:49:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from atl4mhob05.myregisteredsite.com (atl4mhob05.myregisteredsite.com [209.17.115.43]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A0B121F86E3 for ; Wed, 10 Oct 2012 01:49:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailpod.hostingplatform.com (mail.networksolutionsemail.com [205.178.146.50]) by atl4mhob05.myregisteredsite.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q9A8n5XJ002220 for ; Wed, 10 Oct 2012 04:49:05 -0400 Received: (qmail 11946 invoked by uid 0); 10 Oct 2012 08:49:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.1.106?) (98.151.18.90) by 0 with SMTP; 10 Oct 2012 08:49:05 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1283) From: Randy Turner In-Reply-To: Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 01:49:05 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <20121004214451.3466.22760.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> To: NEA X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1283) Subject: Re: [Nea] IPR Disclosure: Cisco's Statement of IPR Related to draft-ietf-nea-pt-tls-07 X-BeenThere: nea@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Network Endpoint Assessment discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 08:49:08 -0000 Hi All, My interpretation of the IPR statement issued by Cisco, in effect, = offers two options: 1. You can use the technology claimed by their patent application in = products, royalty-free, as long as you give up all rights to assert ANY = patent claim against Cisco, or it's products. (this is essentially a = "patent-kill" option, which would, in theory, grant Cisco the right to = use any of your patented technology in products as long as you choose = this option #1 to include their claims on PT-TLS in your products. = You're basically agreeing to waive your patent rights if you choose the = royalty-free option.) OR 2. You can go the royalty option if you decide to ship products based = on technology claimed by the patent application As long as the terms of option #2 are offered in a non-discriminatory = fashion to interested parties, I'm assuming this meets the overall = spirit of RFC 3979. I think the WG would agree, that at this point in the process, we would = like to see the PT-TLS work advance -- and that any IPR statement = asserted against our PT-EAP draft would have to be quite onerous for us = to decide otherwise. If a non-discriminatory policy towards option #2 is available, then I = would say the burden of the IPR statement is probably not sufficient to = rethink our PT-TLS document. Randy On Oct 4, 2012, at 9:23 PM, Stephen Hanna wrote: > IETF Secretariat wrote: >> An IPR disclosure that pertains to your Internet-Draft entitled >> "PT-TLS: A TCP-based Posture Transport (PT) Protocol" >> (draft-ietf-nea-pt-tls) was submitted to the IETF Secretariat >> on 2012-10-04 >=20 > Well, that's a pain in the neck! I'm not happy to see these > IPR disclosures come in so late in the process. PT-TLS is > already with the IESG and PT-EAP has passed two WGLCs and > is almost ready to go to the IESG. This IPR should have > been disclosed much earlier, if at all possible. >=20 > At this time, I would encourage nea participants to read > (or re-read) RFC 3979, which describes how we handle IPR > disclosures in IETF. Also read the IPR disclosures to see > what's included in the patents in question and what IPR > licensing terms are being offered. >=20 > I would ask Cisco to please provide a link to the actual > patent application (since I guess there is no patent yet > and I can't find the patent application) so that we can > see what technology is claimed to be covered. >=20 > Thanks, >=20 > Steve >=20 >> -----Original Message----- >> From: nea-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:nea-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of >> IETF Secretariat >> Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2012 5:45 PM >> To: Paul_Sangster@symantec.com; ncamwing@cisco.com; = jsalowey@cisco.com >> Cc: nea@ietf.org; turners@ieca.com; ipr-announce@ietf.org >> Subject: [Nea] IPR Disclosure: Cisco's Statement of IPR Related to >> draft-ietf-nea-pt-tls-07 >>=20 >>=20 >> Dear Paul Sangster, Nancy Cam-Winget, Joseph A. Salowey: >>=20 >> An IPR disclosure that pertains to your Internet-Draft entitled "PT- >> TLS: A TCP- >> based Posture Transport (PT) Protocol" (draft-ietf-nea-pt-tls) was >> submitted to >> the IETF Secretariat on 2012-10-04 and has been posted on the "IETF >> Page of >> Intellectual Property Rights Disclosures" >> (https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1890/). The title of the IPR >> disclosure is >> "Cisco's Statement of IPR Related to draft-ietf-nea-pt-tls-07.""); >>=20 >> The IETF Secretariat >>=20 >> _______________________________________________ >> Nea mailing list >> Nea@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nea > _______________________________________________ > Nea mailing list > Nea@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nea >=20 From internet-drafts@ietf.org Fri Oct 19 10:49:13 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: nea@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: nea@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B78A921F876A; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 10:49:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.527 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.527 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.072, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XAN4DGl6blbS; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 10:49:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45EBB21F85AE; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 10:49:13 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.34 Message-ID: <20121019174913.5769.2303.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 10:49:13 -0700 Cc: nea@ietf.org Subject: [Nea] I-D Action: draft-ietf-nea-asokan-02.txt X-BeenThere: nea@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Network Endpoint Assessment discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 17:49:14 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the Network Endpoint Assessment Working Group= of the IETF. Title : NEA Asokan Attack Analysis Author(s) : Joseph Salowey Steve Hanna Filename : draft-ietf-nea-asokan-02.txt Pages : 8 Date : 2012-10-19 Abstract: The Network Endpoint Assessment protocols are subject to a subtle forwarding attack that has become known as the NEA Asokan Attack. This document describes the attack and countermeasures that may be mounted. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-nea-asokan There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-nea-asokan-02 A diff from the previous version is available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-nea-asokan-02 Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From iesg-secretary@ietf.org Fri Oct 19 13:16:30 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: nea@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: nea@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DAE8721F87B2; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 13:16:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.536 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.536 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.063, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id x+6UCsbBqbfh; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 13:16:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64C1921F87FB; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 13:16:29 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.34 Message-ID: <20121019201629.27427.43014.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 13:16:29 -0700 Cc: nea mailing list , nea chair , RFC Editor Subject: [Nea] Document Action: 'NEA Asokan Attack Analysis' to Informational RFC (draft-ietf-nea-asokan-02.txt) X-BeenThere: nea@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Network Endpoint Assessment discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 20:16:30 -0000 The IESG has approved the following document: - 'NEA Asokan Attack Analysis' (draft-ietf-nea-asokan-02.txt) as Informational RFC This document is the product of the Network Endpoint Assessment Working Group. The IESG contact persons are Stephen Farrell and Sean Turner. A URL of this Internet Draft is: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-nea-asokan/ Technical Summary: The Network Endpoint Assessment protocols are subject to a subtle forwarding attack that has become known as the NEA Asokan Attack. This document describes the attack and countermeasures that may be mounted. Working Group Summary: The WG formed a design team in July 2010 with the goal of recommending a general-purpose counter-measure that would work for both of the PT protocols under specification in the WG. The design team analysis and recommendation is the subject of this document. The recommendation of the design team was presented to the WG at the IETF meeting in November 2010 where it received solid support. The result was confirmed on the mailing list in January 2011, and the recommended counter- measure subsequently incorporated into the two PT protocols specified in the NEA WG. The two PT protocols, PT-TLS and PT- EAP, are separately specified in two standards-track documents, and reference this document as an Informative reference. Document Quality: This document does not specify a protocol. Rather, it describes counter-measures that PT-TLS and PT-EAP can use to mitigate against the NEA Asokan attack. The PT-TLS and PT-EAP specifications describe how these counter-measures should be used in these particular protocols. As described above, this document is the result of active participation from several WG members and received substantive review from the WG. Personnel: Susan Thomson is the Document Shepherd. Stephen Farrell is the Responsible Area Director. From internet-drafts@ietf.org Sat Oct 20 12:16:26 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: nea@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: nea@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF35221F8880; Sat, 20 Oct 2012 12:16:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.529 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.529 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.070, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FLHdfVmQkmT6; Sat, 20 Oct 2012 12:16:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE1A021F8842; Sat, 20 Oct 2012 12:16:25 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.34 Message-ID: <20121020191625.13061.24896.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2012 12:16:25 -0700 Cc: nea@ietf.org Subject: [Nea] I-D Action: draft-ietf-nea-pt-tls-08.txt X-BeenThere: nea@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Network Endpoint Assessment discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2012 19:16:26 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the Network Endpoint Assessment Working Group= of the IETF. Title : PT-TLS: A TLS-based Posture Transport (PT) Protocol Author(s) : Paul Sangster Nancy Cam-Winget Joseph Salowey Filename : draft-ietf-nea-pt-tls-08.txt Pages : 44 Date : 2012-10-20 Abstract: This document specifies PT-TLS, a TLS-based Posture Transport (PT) protocol. The PT-TLS protocol carries the Network Endpoint Assessment (NEA) message exchange under the protection of a Transport Layer Security (TLS) secured tunnel. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-nea-pt-tls There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-nea-pt-tls-08 A diff from the previous version is available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-nea-pt-tls-08 Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From latze@angry-red-pla.net Mon Oct 22 04:46:12 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: nea@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: nea@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6537A21F8B95 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 04:46:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WsNcHHi4wm+l for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 04:46:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from thuvia.angry-red-pla.net (thuvia.angry-red-pla.net [83.169.33.217]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7906D21F8B9D for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 04:46:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=thuvia.angry-red-pla.net) by thuvia.angry-red-pla.net with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1TQGSP-0007vF-3y; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 13:46:09 +0200 Received: from 193.5.238.18 (SquirrelMail authenticated user latze) by thuvia.angry-red-pla.net with HTTP; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 13:46:09 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <7ac01beee054d3e3673b17de753517d4.squirrel@thuvia.angry-red-pla.net> In-Reply-To: References: <20121004214451.3466.22760.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 13:46:09 +0200 (CEST) From: "Carolin Latze" To: "Stephen Hanna" User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.15 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Importance: Normal Cc: "nea@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Nea] Deciding How to Proceed with NEA Drafts X-BeenThere: nea@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Network Endpoint Assessment discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 11:46:12 -0000 Hi Steve here are my thoughts: Out of the IPR disclosures "Cisco retains the right to assert its patents against any product or portion thereof that is not necessary for compliance with the standard." --> I am no lawyer and I have no experience with this, but this sentence frightens me a bit. If someone has a cool idea that makes use of the RFC but adds something on top, he might run into troubles with Cisco? The NEA technologies are great to enable other applications and I somehow fear that this IPR disclosures might block those. What is the general experience with statements like this inside the IETF? The IPR statements relate to specific versions of the I-Ds. My question is: Can we use an older version (that might have written before the two different drafts for each of PT-EAP and PT-TLS merged) and progress those without risking an IPR again? If so, that might be a better way. If not, well, let's move on as-is. Regards Carolin > I have been told that we're not likely to get any more > information about the patent application named in Cisco's > IPR disclosure related to NEA so... > > We must now decide how to proceed with PT-TLS and PT-EAP. > > Since you have read RFC 3979, you will know that it is not > our job to comment on the validity of the IPR or of the > licensing terms. We're not lawyers. Arguing about patent > law is a waste of time for us. > > Instead, the real question for us is: > > * Should we proceed with standardizing PT-TLS and PT-EAP > in their current form (subject to the normal edits that > will be made during the standardization process)? > > Please respond to this email with your opinions on this > question. Feel free to include your arguments pro or con. > > Due to the complexity of this matter, I will allow two > weeks for this consensus check. Therefore, please respond > by Monday, October 22 at 9 PM EDT. At that time, I'll > declare a consensus if there is one. > > Thanks, > > Steve > > _______________________________________________ > Nea mailing list > Nea@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nea > From shanna@juniper.net Mon Oct 22 08:01:30 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: nea@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: nea@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E6D821F8C2B for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 08:01:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -105.033 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.033 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.566, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, UNRESOLVED_TEMPLATE=3.132, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WSzdsIRZli8Z for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 08:01:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod7og106.obsmtp.com (exprod7og106.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.165]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8325F21F8C20 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 08:01:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from P-EMHUB03-HQ.jnpr.net ([66.129.224.36]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob106.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUIVfyNfHMSK73HyZiUOwlisHjZ3Ymd92@postini.com; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 08:01:28 PDT Received: from P-CLDFE01-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.59) by P-EMHUB03-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.37) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.213.0; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 07:59:28 -0700 Received: from o365mail.juniper.net (207.17.137.224) by o365mail.juniper.net (172.24.192.59) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.355.2; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 07:59:27 -0700 Received: from db3outboundpool.messaging.microsoft.com (213.199.154.144) by o365mail.juniper.net (207.17.137.224) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.355.2; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 08:05:42 -0700 Received: from mail34-db3-R.bigfish.com (10.3.81.227) by DB3EHSOBE005.bigfish.com (10.3.84.25) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.225.23; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 14:59:26 +0000 Received: from mail34-db3 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail34-db3-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 359F2C0258 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 14:59:26 +0000 (UTC) X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:157.56.236.101; KIP:(null); UIP:(null); (null); H:BY2PRD0510HT005.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; R:internal; EFV:INT X-SpamScore: -29 X-BigFish: PS-29(zz9371I1454I542M1432I4015Izz1202h1d1ah1d2ahzz1033IL8275dhz2dh2a8h668h839h944hd25hf0ah107ah1220h1288h12a5h12a9h12bdh137ah13b6h1441h1504h1155h) Received: from mail34-db3 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail34-db3 (MessageSwitch) id 1350917946102973_1349; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 14:59:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from DB3EHSMHS009.bigfish.com (unknown [10.3.81.246]) by mail34-db3.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFA2EA016B; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 14:58:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from BY2PRD0510HT005.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (157.56.236.101) by DB3EHSMHS009.bigfish.com (10.3.87.109) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.225.23; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 14:58:15 +0000 Received: from BY2PRD0510MB366.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.6.102]) by BY2PRD0510HT005.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.255.84.40]) with mapi id 14.16.0224.004; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 14:58:14 +0000 From: Stephen Hanna To: Carolin Latze Thread-Topic: [Nea] Deciding How to Proceed with NEA Drafts Thread-Index: Ac2ieYKtkQ58J1KuR6+JEY3IpCq6LgANErkQAMHjfjACpV4MgAAFy46Q Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 14:58:13 +0000 Message-ID: References: <20121004214451.3466.22760.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <7ac01beee054d3e3673b17de753517d4.squirrel@thuvia.angry-red-pla.net> In-Reply-To: <7ac01beee054d3e3673b17de753517d4.squirrel@thuvia.angry-red-pla.net> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [66.129.232.2] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%0$Dn%*$RO%0$TLS%0$FQDN%$TlsDn% X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%12219$Dn%ANGRY-RED-PLA.NET$RO%2$TLS%5$FQDN%onpremiseedge-1018244.customer.frontbridge.com$TlsDn%o365mail.juniper.net X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%12219$Dn%IETF.ORG$RO%2$TLS%5$FQDN%onpremiseedge-1018244.customer.frontbridge.com$TlsDn%o365mail.juniper.net Cc: "nea@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Nea] Deciding How to Proceed with NEA Drafts X-BeenThere: nea@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Network Endpoint Assessment discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 15:01:30 -0000 Carolin, I'll try to answer some of the questions that you posed below. Note that I am not a lawyer but only a technical expert and an experienced IETF participant. > "Cisco retains the right to assert its patents against any product or > portion thereof that is not necessary for compliance with the > standard." > > What is the general experience with statements like this > inside the IETF? Cisco's IPR statement (including the part quoted above) is similar to many others that are provided by IETF participants. > The IPR statements relate to specific versions of the I-Ds. > My question is: Can we use an older version (that might have > written before the two different drafts for each of PT-EAP > and PT-TLS merged) and progress those without risking an IPR > again? If so, that might be a better way. If not, well, let's > move on as-is. I don't think we have a clear answer to this since we haven't seen the patent application in question and we haven't received any statement from Cisco regarding earlier versions of the PT drafts. The absence of a statement from Cisco on those earlier drafts does not mean that the earlier drafts would have been clear of this IPR. I don't think we have any hard information on this topic. Personally, I doubt that the relatively small changes that have been made to the drafts since they were originally submitted would be likely to affect the applicability of the IPR claimed by Cisco. But we just don't know, at this point. The earlier drafts might be affected or they might not. Thanks for your review and comments, Steve > -----Original Message----- > From: nea-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:nea-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > Carolin Latze > Sent: Monday, October 22, 2012 7:46 AM > To: Stephen Hanna > Cc: nea@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Nea] Deciding How to Proceed with NEA Drafts >=20 > Hi Steve >=20 > here are my thoughts: >=20 > Out of the IPR disclosures >=20 > "Cisco retains the right to assert its patents against any product or > portion thereof that is not necessary for compliance with the > standard." >=20 > --> I am no lawyer and I have no experience with this, but this > sentence > frightens me a bit. If someone has a cool idea that makes use of the > RFC > but adds something on top, he might run into troubles with Cisco? The > NEA > technologies are great to enable other applications and I somehow fear > that this IPR disclosures might block those. What is the general > experience with statements like this inside the IETF? >=20 >=20 >=20 > The IPR statements relate to specific versions of the I-Ds. My question > is: Can we use an older version (that might have written before the two > different drafts for each of PT-EAP and PT-TLS merged) and progress > those > without risking an IPR again? If so, that might be a better way. If > not, > well, let's move on as-is. >=20 > Regards > Carolin >=20 > > I have been told that we're not likely to get any more > > information about the patent application named in Cisco's > > IPR disclosure related to NEA so... > > > > We must now decide how to proceed with PT-TLS and PT-EAP. > > > > Since you have read RFC 3979, you will know that it is not > > our job to comment on the validity of the IPR or of the > > licensing terms. We're not lawyers. Arguing about patent > > law is a waste of time for us. > > > > Instead, the real question for us is: > > > > * Should we proceed with standardizing PT-TLS and PT-EAP > > in their current form (subject to the normal edits that > > will be made during the standardization process)? > > > > Please respond to this email with your opinions on this > > question. Feel free to include your arguments pro or con. > > > > Due to the complexity of this matter, I will allow two > > weeks for this consensus check. Therefore, please respond > > by Monday, October 22 at 9 PM EDT. At that time, I'll > > declare a consensus if there is one. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Steve > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Nea mailing list > > Nea@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nea > > >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Nea mailing list > Nea@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nea From shanna@juniper.net Mon Oct 22 19:43:00 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: nea@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: nea@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F30A1F0429 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 19:43:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -104.876 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.876 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.409, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, UNRESOLVED_TEMPLATE=3.132, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IElUgRuBeCKd for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 19:42:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod7og121.obsmtp.com (exprod7og121.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.20]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91EDF1F0C54 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 19:42:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from P-EMHUB01-HQ.jnpr.net ([66.129.224.36]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob121.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUIYEMcWOqp+BogoT5XuzOe/yQnxtpIAJ@postini.com; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 19:42:59 PDT Received: from P-CLDFE02-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.60) by P-EMHUB01-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.35) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.213.0; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 19:40:38 -0700 Received: from o365mail.juniper.net (207.17.137.149) by o365mail.juniper.net (172.24.192.60) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.355.2; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 19:40:38 -0700 Received: from co1outboundpool.messaging.microsoft.com (216.32.180.185) by o365mail.juniper.net (207.17.137.149) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.355.2; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 19:42:50 -0700 Received: from mail178-co1-R.bigfish.com (10.243.78.248) by CO1EHSOBE007.bigfish.com (10.243.66.70) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.225.23; Tue, 23 Oct 2012 02:40:37 +0000 Received: from mail178-co1 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail178-co1-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D832F9C014C for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2012 02:40:37 +0000 (UTC) X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:157.56.234.117; KIP:(null); UIP:(null); (null); H:SN2PRD0510HT001.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; R:internal; EFV:INT X-SpamScore: -29 X-BigFish: PS-29(zz9371I1454I542M1432I1528I4015Izz1202h1d1ah1d2ahz31iz1033IL8275dhz2dh2a8h668h839h944hd25hf0ah107ah1220h1288h12a5h12a9h12bdh137ah13b6h1441h1504h1155h) Received: from mail178-co1 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail178-co1 (MessageSwitch) id 1350960036451231_20816; Tue, 23 Oct 2012 02:40:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from CO1EHSMHS012.bigfish.com (unknown [10.243.78.250]) by mail178-co1.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C4A8A8004F for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2012 02:40:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from SN2PRD0510HT001.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (157.56.234.117) by CO1EHSMHS012.bigfish.com (10.243.66.22) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.225.23; Tue, 23 Oct 2012 02:27:32 +0000 Received: from SN2PRD0510MB372.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.12.104]) by SN2PRD0510HT001.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.255.116.36]) with mapi id 14.16.0224.004; Tue, 23 Oct 2012 02:27:32 +0000 From: Stephen Hanna To: "'nea@ietf.org'" Thread-Topic: Deciding How to Proceed with NEA Drafts Thread-Index: Ac2ieYKtkQ58J1KuR6+JEY3IpCq6LgANErkQAMHjfjACxAW3gA== Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 02:27:31 +0000 Message-ID: References: <20121004214451.3466.22760.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <6D7B472690C92748AF2D92B90B5B2986940BD233B7@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net> In-Reply-To: <6D7B472690C92748AF2D92B90B5B2986940BD233B7@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [66.129.232.2] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%0$Dn%*$RO%0$TLS%0$FQDN%$TlsDn% X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%12219$Dn%IETF.ORG$RO%2$TLS%5$FQDN%onpremiseedge-1018244.customer.frontbridge.com$TlsDn%o365mail.juniper.net Subject: Re: [Nea] Deciding How to Proceed with NEA Drafts X-BeenThere: nea@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Network Endpoint Assessment discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 02:43:00 -0000 Thanks to all who participated in this consensus check. The discussions have been quite helpful. As a nea co-chair, I declare that there is a clear consensus in the Working Group in favor of proceeding with the process of standardizing PT-TLS and PT-EAP in their current form, even though there is now an IPR declaration from Cisco pertaining to them. Therefore, I request that our AD and spec editors move these documents forward with all appropriate speed. Thanks, Steve > -----Original Message----- > From: Stephen Hanna > Sent: Monday, October 08, 2012 8:49 PM > To: nea@ietf.org > Subject: Deciding How to Proceed with NEA Drafts >=20 > I have been told that we're not likely to get any more > information about the patent application named in Cisco's > IPR disclosure related to NEA so... >=20 > We must now decide how to proceed with PT-TLS and PT-EAP. >=20 > Since you have read RFC 3979, you will know that it is not > our job to comment on the validity of the IPR or of the > licensing terms. We're not lawyers. Arguing about patent > law is a waste of time for us. >=20 > Instead, the real question for us is: >=20 > * Should we proceed with standardizing PT-TLS and PT-EAP > in their current form (subject to the normal edits that > will be made during the standardization process)? >=20 > Please respond to this email with your opinions on this > question. Feel free to include your arguments pro or con. >=20 > Due to the complexity of this matter, I will allow two > weeks for this consensus check. Therefore, please respond > by Monday, October 22 at 9 PM EDT. At that time, I'll > declare a consensus if there is one. >=20 > Thanks, >=20 > Steve