I had reviewed the link you posted before I posted my append, and I have no context for the "we believe", is this Andrew, or is this RSA or some other entity ? Thus the difference in the link and what is posted from Andrew.
Anthony Nadalin | work 512.838.0085 | cell 512.289.4122
Bill Smith <>
Bill Smith <>
06/02/2004 10:49 AM
To
Anthony Nadalin/Austin/IBM@IBMUS
cc
"''" <>
Subject
Re: [wss] RSA license and the upcoming SAML Interop
In reviewing the IPR declarations for WS-Security (http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/wss/ipr.php), it seems that all of the individual IPR notices contain the word "believes". I assume these declarations (from ContentGuard, Microsoft, and RSA) were acceptable under OASIS IPR Policy. If so, I don't see the problem with the text quoted below.
Anthony Nadalin wrote:
There was a action item that was closed today AI #280. The wording below is not definitive ("we believe") which is somewhat worry some, can we please make a clear IPR statement as IPR statement (I take this as an IPR statement) is worded in such a way as to suggest that doing anything "useful" with the SAML profile and encrypted channels may require licensing RSA patents.
I would like to either reopen AI #280 or create a new AI to cover these concerns.
Anthony Nadalin | work 512.838.0085 | cell 512.289.4122
"Nash, Andrew" <>
"Nash, Andrew" <>
05/04/2004 04:51 PM
To
"''" <>
cc
Subject
[wss] RSA license and the upcoming SAML Interop
After some careful review today, we believe that it will not be necessary for implementers engaged in supporting the upcoming interop scenarios to sign the RF license agreement with RSA, provided that Scenario #3 does not make use of an encrypted channel between the Requestor and Responder.
--Andrew
