On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 8:48 AM, Julian Reschke
<julian(_dot_)reschke(_at_)gmx(_dot_)de> wrote:
On 2016-01-18 23:07, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
...
1) It is quite possible that following current registration practices,
someone else might apply for mmm and the registration would be
granted. And then my only recourse might be a lawsuit.
...
How does "First-Come-First-Serve" make that better? Doesn't it even make it
worse?
2) I may not be able to provide the specification, either because the
protocol is experimental or proprietary.
...
"Experimental", as far as I understand, isn't a problem per se.
Sorry, hit return too soon. Have undone all the effect of merging my
earlier responses.
The reason I might not want to publish an experimental spec is to
avoid it becoming a competitor to a standard we intend to create later
on.
For example, right now in the lab I have a dalek we are fitting with a
drive system, motorizing the dome, manipulator arm, gun etc. The
current design has message level authentication and encryption. The
point being to demonstrate that applying crypto at the lowest levels
of circuit design is practical. I am planning to share that code in
the dalek building community and with other builders of similar
robots. But the protocols themselves are very specific. I would not
want to propose them as the basis for a standard, any standard would
be built on what we learned.
Point is that I don't want my standards proposals competing with my
experiments. We had that with HTTP/0.9 which was a pain in the
patootie for over a decade despite the fact it was only active for
less than a year.