I'm not entirely sure I understand your point.
1. There has been no IPR disclosure - so technically the Last Call announcement is correct - we agree on this point, I think.
2. Section 5.5 only applies in the case of an IPR disclosure, no?
3. My note to the IETF Last Call list on this topic, was just to ensure that we were being transparent about the current state.
But maybe we are in agreement?
Deb
On Mon, Jun 2, 2025 at 12:57 PM S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Deb,
At 07:19 AM 26-05-2025, Deb Cooley wrote:
>To elaborate a tiny bit on the last sentence of the IETF Last Call
>announcement. It is true that there are no IPR declarations. It is
>not true that there is no IPR. For more information on the IPR that
>may be associated with Kyber/ML-KEM, please this this message from
>the lamps
>archive:
><https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spasm/GKFhHfBeCgf8hQQvhUcyOJ6M-kI/>https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spasm/GKFhHfBeCgf8hQQvhUcyOJ6M-kI/
>. There is also more information on how the working group handled
>that in the Shepherd's writeup.
The last sentence in the Last-Call announcement is factually correct
[1]. The case, here, is that the information was not provided as
specified in Section 4 (B) of RFC 8179. If the information provided
during the working group discussions was an IPR disclosure, it would
not be in compliance with Section 5.5 (D) of RFC 8179.
Regards,
S. Moonesamy
1.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?draft=draft-ietf-lamps-kyber-certificates-10&rfc=&doctitle=&group=&holder=&iprtitle=&patent=&submit=draft
-- last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx
