Re: protocol progress...

Phoenix Technologies' statement can be found at:

http://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/PHOENIX-SRP-RFC2945.txt

I think we will have to accept that the IPR situation is unclear at the
moment, and will continue to be so for some time. As long as we base our
security on a framework like SASL, however, it will always be possible to
revisit this issue later on without extensive re-architecturing.

Going back to Stephen's original posting therefore, one possible existing
SASL mechanism could be Digest-MD5, documented in RFC 2831. Digest-MD5
is not encumbered, offer security services such as integrity protection,
and does offer some advantages over other password-based mechanisms such
as CRAM-MD5.

-- Magnus

On Mon, 22 Apr 2002, Alexey Melnikov wrote:

>
> Eamon O'Tuathail wrote:
>
> > Tom,
> >
> > > Stanford's royalty-free IPR statement is on file with the IETF.
> >
> > True, and that is much appreciated, but ...
> >
> > .. has any company/organization other than Stanford make IPR claims
> > about SRP? If so, what are those claims, how valid are they, and are any
> > of those making the claims NOT prepared to offer royalty-free IPR on
> > them?
>
> That is exactly the case. I am not in any shape or form an expert on IPR
> issues, but I've got impression that some organization (other than Stanford)
> has IPR claims for SRP. Can somebody clarify that?
>
> > If the technically excellent SRP were totally free from royalty-bearing
> > IPR claims, I would be happy to see it used, otherwise a different