Subject: Re: [KEYPROV] Second Last Call: draft-ietf-keyprov-symmetrickeyformat (Symmetric Key Package Content Type) to Proposed Standard

From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 1 May 2010 11:13:46 -0400

I am not sure if the reference is definitively normative. Looks to me
as if implementers can implement without reading the Luhn patent

However, ISO/IEC 7812 is the same as the Luhn patent so how about we
make [LUHN] informative and Annex B of ISO/IEC 7812 normative?

       o checkDigit indicates whether a device needs to check the
        appended Luhn check digit, as defined in [LUHN], contained in a
        challenge.  The checkDigit MUST NOT be present if the encoding
        value is anything other than 'DECIMAL'.  A value of TRUE
        indicates that the device will check the appended Luhn check
        digit in a provided challenge.  A value of FALSE indicates that
        the device will not check the appended Luhn check digit in the
        challenge.

On the downref issue, the binary format is being used in real code so
should not be considered experimental at this point in my view. I
would like to see the binary time RFC upgraded to standard.
On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 4:12 PM, Sam Hartman <[email-masked]> wrote:
>>>>>> "Simon" == Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]> writes:
>
>    Simon> This document appears to have a normative reference to a
>    Simon> patent:
>
>    Simon>    [LUHN] Luhn, H., "Luhn algorithm", US Patent 2950048,
>    Simon> August 1960, http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-
>    Simon> Parser?patentnumber=2950048.
>
>    Simon> I cannot find a patent disclosure about this on file with the
>    Simon> IETF:
>
>    Simon> https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?option=document_search&document_search=draft-ietf-keyprov-symmetrickeyformat
>
>    Simon> I believe the authors should file a patent disclosure about
>    Simon> this in order to comply with the spirit of RFC 3979 section
>    Simon> 6.1.3.
>
> Simon, I'm not sure what the letter of that BCP says, but I think the
> spirit  of the requirements is that we should have disclosures regarding
> any IPR that may pose concerns for implementation.
>
>
> As far as I can tell, this is an August 1960 patent.  It's old enough
> that no license is required.  I do not see any concerns this poses.
>
> Am I missing something.
>
> --Sam
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>

-- 
Website: http://hallambaker.com/