At Fri, 19 Oct 2007 10:26:33 +1300,
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 2007-10-19 03:30, Simon Josefsson wrote:
...
To clarify that the part of the community that I'm a member of is not
interested in supporting this technology, we have decided to remove our
implementation. See the announcement for GnuTLS in:
** TLS authorization support removed.
This technique may be patented in the future, and it is not of crucial
importance for the Internet community. After deliberation we have
concluded that the best thing we can do in this situation is to
encourage society not to adopt this technique. We have decided to
lead the way with our own actions.
<http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.network.gnutls.general/955>
I don't consider that a good argument for censoring the document.
We might consider publishing it as Informational, like other RFCs
that are published "for the record" . This means deciding between
guidelines 3 and 4 in http://www.ietf.org/u/ietfchair/info-exp.html.
(BTW, should that be an ION?)
Brian,
I don't really have a strong opinion about whether this document
should be published as Experimental, Informational, or not at
all, but I don't really understand your argument here:
1. I don't see how this is an issue of censorship. It's not like
the authors couldn't publish the document on their Web site
or wherever.
2. The issue isn't so much document publication as the code
point assignment that goes with it.
-Ekr
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf