Benjamin Franz a écrit :
On Fri, 10 Sep 2004, Danny Angus wrote:
Andrew Newton wrote:
No single scope would be mandatory to provide or check;
I think that one unencumbered scope should be mandatory.
I concur. Trying to slide PRA around the non-consensus wall by making it
one of several optional scopes is not a good answer. There needs to be at
least one unencumbered mandatory scope so that deployment does not
degenerate into non-interoperable closed source 'PRA supporters' and F/OSS
based 'SPF supporters' camps. Which is precisely what will happen if
passed along in this form.
I agree with this. For the time being, only non-encumbered
scopes/algorithms should be considered for validation by MARID, and the
modular structure that allows adding future scopes/algorithm is good for
we can later consider adding currently encumbered algorithms/scopes in the
event that they become non-encumbered.
But the "modular" approach must not serve as an excuse for approving
"among other possibilities" a scope/algorithm for which a massive number
of WG participants (read : a clear majority) have expressed that they
disapprove of because of the IPR encumbrance issue.
--
Michel Bouissou <michel(_at_)bouissou(_dot_)net> OpenPGP ID 0xDDE8AC6E