Re: [security-services] Liberty ID-FF 1.2 submission to the SSTC

["Conor P. Cahill" <concahill@aol.com>]

Anthony Nadalin wrote on 11/16/2003, 9:45 PM:
 >
 > As I read this and the Liberty site there are 5 companies that claim
 > IP on the specifications, this puts a unknown burden companies in the
 > SS-TC that wish to see RF.

First off, with respect to version 1.2 of ID-FF, the IPR claims have not 
changed vs version 1.1 which has already been accepted by the SSTC.

Secondly, many of the IPR claims are RF (or at least reciprical RF which 
is sometimes referred to as RANDZ) and those that aren't RF are RAND.

Finally, does anyone out there really think that you can develop 
something more complex than main(){printf("hello world\n");} that isn't 
impacted by someone's (typically not one of the author's) IP?  I think 
NOT.  That isn't to say that we should ignore IP, but rather that we 
can't assume that anything we do will be RF, even if *ALL* of the 
authors agree to make it RF.

Conor