On 2007-10-27 07:04, Randy Presuhn wrote:
Hi -
The existence of IPR claims potentially relevant to the implementation
of a specification has never been sufficient grounds to block the
publication of that specification as an RFC. Given the unfortunate
history of this work, publication of draft-housley-tls-authz-extns
as experimental seems to be the most sensible path out of this mess.
I agree. The DOS attack on this list seems to be from people
who haven't read RFC 2026 and use meaningless phrases like
"experimental standard." In fact, publishing this as an experiment
to see if it gets implemented and deployed despite the IPR issue
seems like *exactly* the right thing to do.
Brian
If the IPR terms are indeed so onerous as to preclude widespread
implementation, as seems to be the concern of some, then it will
simply gather dust with other "experiments" that didn't work out,
and the open source community need not worry. If, on the other
hand, this technology is so superior to anything the open source
community can offer as an alternative, then Darwin will go to work.
None of the recent argumentation has been technical. None of the
recent argumentation has provided a convincing procedural reason
to block publication of draft-housley-tls-authz-extns. Let's just
hand it over to the RFC editor and be done with it.
Randy
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf