Subject: Re: secsh meeting in pittsburgh: call for agenda items.

From: Niels Provos <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 14:57:52 -0400

In message <[email-masked]>, Bill Sommerfeld wri
tes:
>We need an agenda for the meeting, so I'll shortly be going through
>back traffic to this mailing list looking for any open issues/problems
Markus Friedl, Bill Simpson and I authored a draft on

 "Diffie-Hellman Group Exchange for the SSH Transport Layer Protocol"

It is available as draft-provos-secsh-dh-group-exchange-00.txt, and
we would like the working group to consider it.

Regards,
 Niels Provos.

---

From: Bill Sommerfeld <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 19:19:13 -0400

> we would like the working group to consider it.

The document starts with the statement:

   This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
   all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026, except that the right to
   produce derivative works is not granted.

Given that derivative works may not be produced, this document cannot
form the basis of a potential standards track document, and it would
thus not be appropriate to devote meeting time to discussing it.

If there is other interest in this area, I can set aside some time for
general discussion of DH parameter negotiation within the SSHv2
protocol, but unless you and your co-authors agree to change this
clause in your document, someone else will have to write a new draft
which is not derived from yours.

					- Bill

---

From: "Perry E. Metzger" <[email-masked]>
Date: 26 Jul 2000 23:01:02 -0400

> we would like the working group to consider it.

When I was chair, I rejected having this be a real working group
document because of the intellectual property clauses associated with
it. It really isn't possible to consider a document with the "no
derivative works" clause for standardization. I had thought I
re-mentioned the issue to you at Usenix, although I'm so exhausted
these days my memory on such things is rather fallible.

In any case, I would strongly urge that if you want it to be
considered, you remove the "no derivative works" clause. It isn't my
call any more, but I suspect that consensus in the IETF is still that
such documents can be published but can never be made into real
standards.

--
Perry E. Metzger		[email-masked]
--
Quality NetBSD Sales, Support & Service. http://www.wasabisystems.com/