On Mon, Feb 09, 2009 at 08:56:01PM -0500, Dean Anderson wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Feb 2009, Randy Presuhn wrote:
>
> > Subscribing someone to a list and not allowing them to remove
> > themselves... seems like a page from the same "win friends and
> > influence people" checklist as the fsf campaign seem
Dear Brian;
On Feb 9, 2009, at 8:50 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
FWIW (and it would be good if other actual
IETF participants care to indicate +1 if they agree):
FWIW I read the IPR statement and couldn't figure out what the recent
posters
were talking about either.
Hunting around, I com
On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 5:50 PM, Brian E Carpenter <
brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com> wrote:
> FWIW (and it would be good if other actual
> IETF participants care to indicate +1 if they agree):
>
> The actual words in RedPhone's current disclosure:
>
> "RedPhone Security hereby asserts that the techniq
On 2009-02-10 15:12, David Morris wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 10 Feb 2009, John Levine wrote:
>
>> Any chance we could require that one subscribes to the list before
>> posting to it? I realize that sufficiently motivated drive-bys could
>> subscribe, send, and leave, but it might reinforce the idea t
On Mon, 10 Feb 2009, John Levine wrote:
Any chance we could require that one subscribes to the list before
posting to it? I realize that sufficiently motivated drive-bys could
subscribe, send, and leave, but it might reinforce the idea that IETF
lists are for debate, not for screeds.
Subscr
FWIW (and it would be good if other actual
IETF participants care to indicate +1 if they agree):
The actual words in RedPhone's current disclosure:
"RedPhone Security hereby asserts that the techniques for
sending and receiving authorizations defined in TLS Authorizations
Extensions (version draf
I'm adding my name to this chorus. Do not approve TLS. Just say no.
regards
joe baptista
On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 4:37 AM, Phil Driscoll wrote:
> I am managing director of a software company working almost exclusively in
> the
> development and deployment of internet technologies on free softwar
Dear Steve:
Indeed, I can see your perspective on this now, with the aid of
information that I was unaware of previously. I did not recall this
situation happening before (either I wasn't paying attention at that
time, or I was not yet a member of the list at that time, I joined -
if I recall cor
Excerpts from Randy Presuhn on Mon, Feb 09, 2009 04:50:57PM -0800:
> > Normally, I advocate entirely ignoring silliness, but the current version
> > of it
> > is more than silly.
>
> Particularly since mail to the -request address bounces, and
> using the web interface to unsubscribe apparently
Dave: I disagree ...
Dean's mail does not hurt any of us. OK, it does take a minute of our
time to unsubscribe but that's it. The ietf list will see the same
messages it has already been seeing; his list will carry a few other
messages for people who choose to use it. Messages sent to his list
On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 16:38:00 -0800 Dave CROCKER wrote:
...
>Since we happen to simultaneously be suffering a DOS attack on the list
from a
>separately-concerned community,
...
I think an accusation that the FSF is conducting a DOS attack on the IETF
is very serious.
If you find several doze
>IIRC, from the previous time, not one person stuck around afterwards
>to actually initiate a dialog.
That is my recollection as well. Given the cut and paste errors in
many of the messages, I don't get the impression that our new friends,
polite though they may be, are particularly well informed
> From: Andrew Newton
> Considering the IETF encourages people to communicate with it via
> mailing lists
Actually, I thought the point of the mailing lists was for the members of the
IETF community to be able communicate with each other (notice how those two
words have a similar roo
Alex,
The conclusion I draw from this experience differs from yours. If the
individuals who sent the messages in question choose to become
involved constructively, then there can be some benefit. But, the act
of sending the messages in question has generated ill will, so it was
a bad way to b
On Feb 9, 2009, at 7:35 PM, Scott Brim wrote:
Excerpts from Tim Bray on Mon, Feb 09, 2009 04:30:04PM -0800:
The vast majority of these FSF-solicited comments have been
respectful and
polite in tone.
Someone who comes by, drops an opinion and then leaves, is not giving
any of us respect. I
Hi -
> From: "Dave CROCKER"
> To: "IETF Discussion"
> Sent: Monday, February 09, 2009 4:38 PM
> Subject: It's time for some new steps (was: [Welcome to the
> "Ietf-honest"mailing list])
...
> Normally, I advocate entirely ignoring silliness, but the current version of
> it
> is more than sill
Dear Clint:
Ah, I see. It seems that my optimism is misguided, if there is a
precedent of such situations not having any long or short term
benefits. That is unfortunate.
However, it did have one minor benefit, which may be of questionable
merit. The sheer volume of E-Mails did force me to pay
> For the above text to be more clear, I'd suggest something like:
>
> NEW PROPOSED
>
> c. Derivative Works and Publication Limitations. If a Contributor
>desires to limit the right to make modifications and derivative
>works of an IETF Contribution, then one of the notice
> -Original Message-
> From: Thomas Narten [mailto:nar...@us.ibm.com]
> Sent: Monday, February 09, 2009 6:23 PM
> To: Marshall Eubanks
> Cc: Contreras, Jorge; Trustees; SM; ietf@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Trustees] Last Call for Comments: Proposed
> work-around to thePre-5378 Problem
>
Alex,
This is not the first time the FSF has mailbombed i...@ietf.org, in
fact this is the second time they have done so on this issue alone.
IIRC, from the previous time, not one person stuck around afterwards
to actually initiate a dialog. It was all a one-way blast of
"communication", a monol
Folks,
The enclosed comes from iadl.org which is controlled by av8.com which is
controlled by Dean Anderson.
Normally, I advocate entirely ignoring silliness, but the current version of it
is more than silly.
This action by Dean is not merely posting inappropriate notes that would warrant
Hi -
It might be a bit more credible if they offered a plausible alternative
technology. Have they said when they'll post their I-D (meeting all
RFC 5378 requirements, of course)?
Randy
> From: "AJ Jaghori"
> To: "mshore" ; "Jeffrey Hankins" ;
> ;
> Sent: Monday, February 09, 2009 3:41 PM
>
Excerpts from Tim Bray on Mon, Feb 09, 2009 04:30:04PM -0800:
> The vast majority of these FSF-solicited comments have been respectful and
> polite in tone.
Someone who comes by, drops an opinion and then leaves, is not giving
any of us respect. I am always pleased to have a constructive
discu
On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 4:07 PM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
>> From: Alex Loret de Mola
>
>> However, these are people who are upset, and want to make thier
>> opinions known... it is good to know (and see) that so many people are
>> interested and have a strong opinion about this subject
Dear Noel:
Noel, there's no need to be cross. The mail is filling up my inbox
the same as yours, there's no need to get upset with me about my
opinion on the matter.
I don't think we should assume that the people messaging here have
nothing of substance to contribute. While it is likely true th
> From: Clint Chaplin
> I see that the FSF has beeen alerted.
The thing that's really irritating is that the FSF has tried this trick
_before_ and had it explained to them then that this sort of thing doesn't
do any good, just irritates people.
Guess the clue level over at the
I've also seen "TSL" instead of "TLS", and "Red Hat" instead of "RedPhone".
On 2/9/09, Philip Nesser wrote:
> I particularly like: "Much of the communication on the Internet
> happens between computers according to standards that define common
> languages"
>
> I would like to know what commun
> From: Alex Loret de Mola
> However, these are people who are upset, and want to make thier
> opinions known... it is good to know (and see) that so many people are
> interested and have a strong opinion about this subject.
Give me an effing break. These people have simply been
I particularly like: "Much of the communication on the Internet
happens between computers according to standards that define common
languages"
I would like to know what communications the computers are getting up
to that don't use protocols?
On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 3:37 PM, Ken Raeburn wrote:
>
Alex Loret de Mola wrote:
> Dear Carsten: (And others who feel upset at the recent development)
>
> As someone who's been a (mostly silent, but frequently reading) member
> of this mailing list, I can understand your concern. However, can you
> propose a better way for them to contact members of
Dear Cos:
True, and I agree with the facts about the process completely.
However, these are people who are upset, and want to make thier
opinions known... though there is no "voting process", per se, it is
good to know (and see) that so many people are interested and have a
strong opinion about th
Lol :)
Its an interesting attempt, to say the least...
On 2/9/09, mshore wrote:
> On 2/8/09 11:22 AM, "Jeffrey Hankins" wrote:
>> Please stand up for software freedom and reject the TLS proposal until
>> RedPhone Security issues a royalty-free patent for TLS. Thank you.
>
> And the content cr
I never claimed that I was immersed. I also haven't chimed in on
something that I'm not immersed in. Unlike over 100 people in the
last half hour.
On 2/9/09, Gary E. Miller wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Yo Clint!
>
>
> On Mon, 9 Feb 2009, Clint Chaplin wrote:
>
On Feb 9, 2009, at 17:49, Clint Chaplin wrote:
I see that the FSF has beeen alerted. Prepare for the flood of very
similar whinges from people who have not immersed themselves in the
subject at hand.
I'm particularly amused by the people who think we should not grant
Red Hat the patent.
I
> http://www.fsf.org/news/reoppose-tls-authz-standard
>
> While I have a lot of sympathy for the cause, I have very little
> sympathy for the methods.
> Rendering a mailing list that might be useful for actually resolving
> the issue inoperative by a "campaign" is idiotic.
> Somebody from I* (the I
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Yo Clint!
On Mon, 9 Feb 2009, Clint Chaplin wrote:
> I see that the FSF has beeen alerted. Prepare for the flood of very
> similar whinges from people who have not immersed themselves in the
> subject at hand.
If you have been immersed, what is you
Indeed. Perhaps it would be a more credible spam campaign if
draft-housley-tls-authz-extns-07.txt actually infringed the IPR held by
RedPhone.
Regards,
Chuck
-
Chuck Powers,
Motorola, Inc
phone: 512-427-7261
mobile: 512-576-0008
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-boun..
> > NEW PROPOSED
> >
> >c. Derivative Works and Publication Limitations. If a Contributor
> > desires to limit the right to make modifications and derivative
> s/desires/needs/
> I don't think that "desires" is appropriate here - as John pointed
> out, the contributor has no discreti
Fellow members of the IETF:
I would like to add my voice to those who have expressed discontent in
the proposed TLS Authorization Extensions.
The use of a Patented standard (especially one that may have such
patents legally enforced, as in the case of RedPhone) appears to me to
be in violation of
On Feb 9, 2009, at 5:26 PM, Thomas Narten wrote:
Ok, I think (hope) I understand the intention now. How about the
following as a friendly clarifying amendment to the proposed text:
Sorry, I'm still not happy with the proposed text. I think it is still
not clear. It is the simple English I ha
On 2/8/09 11:22 AM, "Jeffrey Hankins" wrote:
> Please stand up for software freedom and reject the TLS proposal until
> RedPhone Security issues a royalty-free patent for TLS. Thank you.
And the content cracks me way the heck up, too. Otherwise
this is really, really annoying. What, these peopl
http://www.fsf.org/news/reoppose-tls-authz-standard
While I have a lot of sympathy for the cause, I have very little
sympathy for the methods.
Rendering a mailing list that might be useful for actually resolving
the issue inoperative by a "campaign" is idiotic.
Somebody from I* (the IETF chai
Dear IETF,
I am writing to inform you that I oppose the proposed TLS Authorization
standard. The standard is encumbered by a patent from RedPhone Security.
all the best
Chris Mister
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/m
Dear IETF:
I have learned from the Free Software Foundation that the IETF is
considering as a proposed standard a form of TLS authorization based
on a patent held by RedPhone. I would like to encourage the IETF to
try to find a patent-free solution to the problem. The IETF is a
highly respected
Sir/Madam,
I hereby wish to express my disapproval of the renewed attempts by the IETF
to push through the patent-encumbered "TLS authorization" standard.
--
Regards,
Vincent Callanan
Managing Director,
Syvista
Campus Innovation Centre
Green Road
Carlow
Ireland
+353-86-8511625
__
Hello,
I support FSF's concern regarding patent-encumbered standard
proposal on TLS auth extensions laid out here:
http://www.fsf.org/news/reoppose-tls-authz-standard
Being a programmer, systems administrator and free software supporter
over the years, I don't think yielding to software
Regarding the tls-authz specification; I have read the IPR disclosure
1026, and am not assured that this guarantees a royalty-free license for
users of the proposed standard.
The disclosure guarantees that no license is required for implementers,
but lists various uses of the TLS Authorizations Ex
Dear IETF,
I'm very concerned about Transport Layer Security (TLS) Authorization
Extensions Standard!
I am very disappointed with your decision to give a chance to a patented
technology (https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1026/) to become a standard.
Please, don't give green light to RedPhone Secur
Dear IETF,
It has come to my attention that the IETF is considering a standard at
the moment that uses a patented technology owned by RedPhone. This
seriously worries me as a user of the internet ans theoretically in the
future this patent could be applied to my use of this future standard. I
Sirs,
As a body upon whom the developers world-wide depend to provide
interoperable communications standards, I would strongly encourage the
IETF to endorse only open standards and to refuse proprietary standards
of any kind unless provided royalty-free and litigation-free by their
owners to the w
Sirs:
The proposed TLS authorization will create unnecessary restrictions on
internet computer communications. Royalty-free licensing might be the
only acceptable way in which this should become a standard. I would hope
that IETF will oppose this standard in its current form.
Sheldon Gruber
_
Dear task force,
It has come to my knowledge that you are considering approving the
use of patented technology for TLS authorization.
I think this is a bad idea, as it would make it impossible to legally
write free software for such authorization.
I seriously hope you will eliminate patented
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
To Whom It May Concern:
The Free Software Foundation (FSF) just made me aware of a proposal that
requires our immediate attention.
I am a user who depends on the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
and the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG
To whom it may concern,
@IETF
Please reconsider the path of adoption for standardization, involving the
proposed technology, TLS-authorizations, as-is, drafted by 'RedPhone
security' (since 2006).
The group that proposed the standard cannot be let free to have such weight
for the matters of publ
Hi,
I'd humbly like to ask you to reject a standard proposal upon which
the shadow of patents are being cast upon. More and more I see the
amount of waste caused by proprietary models of development. I
apologize if my language for this message ends up sounding juvenile,
but there's no other way I
Hi,
I have received word that a new standard regarding "TLS authorization" has
been brought forward for your consideration. I urge you to dismiss it as a
company that goes by the name of RedPohone is claiming that they own a
patent on the technology. In order to ensure that fair competition can
I share the concerns of the FSF
[http://www.fsf.org/news/reoppose-tls-authz-standard] and Simon
Josefsson [http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg55059.html]
about the TLS-authz draft.
The usefulness of the proposed standard
http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-housley-tls-authz-extns-07.t
I see that the FSF has beeen alerted. Prepare for the flood of very
similar whinges from people who have not immersed themselves in the
subject at hand.
--
Clint (JOATMON) Chaplin
Principal Engineer
Corporate Standardization (US)
SISA
___
Ietf mailing l
Hi there,
I'd like to add my small voice to the campaign by the Free Software
Foundation against the proposed patent-encumbered standard for TLS
authorization. See campai...@fsf.org.
As I understand it, the company RedPhone Security claim a patent which would
have to be licensed by anyone impleme
Hello,
I have recently learned that IETF is working on accepting "TLS
Authorization Extensions". The standard is hindered by a patent, and the
patent holder is threatening to sue anyone who uses the protocol without
obtaining a license.
As a software service provider, I am opposing such stan
Dear IETF members,
It's been more than a decade that I know and respect the IETF. During
all those years, I've implemented lots of the standards, always
reading the RFCs and paying close attention to the details, and was
never afraid of patents or copyright. Actually, the IETF was the last
place I
The IETF must continue to oppose TLS Authorisation standard until
RedPhone provide a royalty-free license for all users.
begin:vcard
fn;quoted-printable:=D0=96=D0=B8=D0=BB=D0=B8=D0=BD =D0=A0=D0=BE=D0=BC=D0=B0=D0=BD =D0=94=D0=BC=
=D0=B8=D1=82=D1=80=D0=B8=D0=B5=D0=B2=D0=B8=D1=87
n;quoted-printable;
Please do NOT approve the patent claimed by red phone. computer languages
are ALL free speech and can not nor should not be "owned." the patent threat
should not be approved w/o a royalty free license. thank you,
Stacia Quarto
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@
On 2/8/09 at 5:52 PM -0500, Jorge Contreras wrote:
iii. If a Contribution includes Pre-5378 Material and the
Contributor does not wish to allow modifications of such
Pre-5378 Material to be made outside the IETF Standards Process:
"does not wish" is not right. The issue is that the current
a
Hello,
since Feb 2006 there is an ongoing proposal for an IETF
standard on "TLS authorization".
Unfortunately this standard is encumbered by a patent from
RedPhone Security. While this company has agreed to provide
a royalty-free license for implementors it has so far
refrained from doing so for
Dear IETF committee members,
In February 2006, a standard for "TLS authorization" was introduced in
the IETF for consideration. Very late in the discussion, a company
called RedPhone Security disclosed (this disclosure has subsequently
been unpublished from the IETF website) that they applied for
I am managing director of a software company working almost exclusively in the
development and deployment of internet technologies on free software.
I would urge you not to approve the Transport Layer Security (TLS)
Authorization Extensions as a standard until RedPhone provide a perpetual
royalt
I write to draw your attention to a renewed effort by RedPhone Security to gain
your approval for their patent-encumbered protocol.
I applaud your previous rejection of this organisation's proposal,
and I respectfully urge that you apply the same strict standards as before.
Please do
To whom it may concern,
This is about:
"Transport Layer Security (TLS) Authorization Extensions"
(draft-housley-tls-authz-extns-07)
Patent information: 11/234,404 ; 60/646,749 ; PCT/US2006/001342
Which can be found by reading the document:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1026/
The section whe
I oppose standardizing "TLS authorization" until such time as RedPhone
Security provide a royalty-free license for all users.
Gill Fitzgerald
oldf...@gmail.com
Home: 520.399.2604 | Mobile: 520.270.1169
262 S. Paseo Madera Unit A, Green Valley, AZ 85614-0732
Dear IETF.
It has come to my attention that you are considering implementing a
patent-encumbered
standard or process for TLS Authorization.
It is my and many others opinion that Internet standards should
be composed entirely of free and open source components.
Prior experience has shown that us
It was brought to my attention that the IETF is to vote on an extension
to the TLS protocol to handle authentication. In and of itself, this
sounds like a very good extension. But it was also brought to my
attention that this authentication protocol may be infringe on
a patent held by RedPhone.
Dear Sir/Madam,
Please do not approve the TLS authorization standard that includes a patent by
RedPhone Security unless they agree to a royalty-free license.
The Internet has grown and been successful due to its open and free nature.
Many companies have attempted to restrict our freedom through
Dear Sir / Madam,
I am writing to you to humbly request that you do not grant a patent to
RedPhone Security for TLS Authorisation.
It seems to me that it is rapidly becoming the "norm" for patents to be
filed for technologies that are already in use (and well established
within the IT community),
Hello,
I am writing in regard to the Internet Draft "Transport Layer Security
(TLS) Authorization Extensions "
and patents applied for by RedPhone Security relating to this draft.
As an organisation, we use TLS for securing both our own information and
and that of clients for transmission across
Dear IETF -
The IETF should reject acceptance of the Transport Layer Security
Authorizations Exetension (TLS Authorization) as a standard. Since use of
this proposed standard is protected by a patent issued to RedPhone Security
and since RedPhone has not made a free license available to any and a
This is a request that the patent-encumbered standard for
TLS authorization involving a patent claimed by RedPhone
Security not be approved unless the patent threat is
entirely removed with a royalty-free license for all users.
A patent encumbered standard for TLS authorization would put
another b
Dear Sirs,
I am a software engineer who has seen corporations in the computer
software/hardware/networking field attempt to seize control of the
creations of others for over thirty years. The Internet works only
because the standards it is based on are open, unencumbered standards.
Adoption
I urge you not to pass the 'TLS authorization extension' protocol as a standard
unless the patent threat posed by RedPhone is removed entirely with a
royalty-free license for all users.
best regards,
Mauro Bieg
--
Jetzt 1 Monat kostenlos! GMX FreeDSL - Telefonanschluss + DSL
für nur 17,95 Euro
I am writing to urge that the IETF reject the TLS authz proposal in all
its forms. Quite simply, the proposal is encumbered by a patent owned
by RedPhone Security, and this patent is not licensed on royalty-free
terms to all users and implementers.
The fundamentals of the internet must be free.
Dear Sirs,
> Despite claims that RedPhone have offered a license for implementation
> of this protocol, users of this protocol would still be threatened by
> the patent. The IETF should continue to oppose this standard until
> RedPhone provide a royalty-free license for all users.
We've enough n
This standard is encumbered with patents and cannot be used in open
source products.
Don't approve it, please.
--
Marcus905
Joe E. Lewis - "I distrust camels, and anyone else who can go a week
without a drink."
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https
Sirs,
I oppose said proposed standard
(http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-housley-tls-authz-extns-07.txt)
Looking at https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1026/ : in section VI,
points 2, 3 and 4 must not be accepted for a standard; point 1 is
objectionable, but at least I agree to discuss i
Dear IETF,
I am writing to vigorously protest against the adoption of a
standard for "TLS authorization" based on a patented method.
The progress of the Internet should not be obstructed by the
greed of companies that attempt to impose control over who
should be allowed to use specific methods.
Dear IETF:
I urge you to strongly oppose any standard that has been, is, or will
be encumbered with patent claims. Regardless of any perception of
beneficence of any patent holders, the legal system around patents has
shown in recent times a remarkable tendency to generate unintended
consequences.
I would like to voice my opposition to the passing of the TLS-authz
proposal for a standard, due to the possibility that RedPhone going
after users with patent infringement claims.
--
skype:leandro.gfc.dutra?chat Yahoo!: ymsgr:sendIM?lgcdutra
+55 (11) 3040 7344 gTalk: xmpp
To whom it may concern,
I've heard from the Free Software Foundation that the Internet
Engineering Task Force (IETF) is trying to propose a standard
encumbered by a patent claimed by RedPhone Security. I heard that
RedPhone has given a license to anyone who implements the protocol,
but they still
Dear Madam/Sir,
I am concerned by the current IETF consideration of approving the
TLS-authz as a standard. TLS-authz is encumbered by a patent as
claimed by RedPhone Security. RedPhone has given a license to anyone
who implements the protocol, but they still threaten to sue anyone
that uses it.
P
Dear IETF,
I appreciate all you have done to keep the internet as free as possible,
and to make the internet better. Truly, the freedom of the internet is
the one overarching principle that makes it so great. This ultimately
is the reason that patent restricted technology should not be
inc
Dear IETF,
As software responsible for a large K-12 school in Turkey I want to strongly
oppose RedPhone's "standard" for TLS authorization. Companies and
organization in developing countries like Turkey finally start to understand
the benefits free software has to offer. It is very important that
Dear Sir or Madam:
Please stand up for software freedom and reject the TLS proposal until
RedPhone Security issues a royalty-free patent for TLS. Thank you.
-Jeff Hankins
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
I am writing in opposition to the proposed TLS authorization standard
which is encumbered by a RedPhone patent.
Unless the RedPhone patent threat is removed entirely with a
royalty-free license for all users, this proposal must be rejected.
I understand that in February 2006 a TLS authorizati
Please do not approve the "TLS authorization" proposal. I worked extensively
with TLS in my academic work in grad school, and eventually left the security
field because improvements to security technologies are so difficult to get
into use.
The IETF is one of the few bodies who can actually
The patent in question is claimed by RedPhone Security. RedPhone has
given a license to anyone who implements the protocol, but they still
threaten to sue anyone that uses it.
Free and open standards are critical to the future of the Internet, and to
communications in general.
Please don't allow t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Dear members of IETF,
as far as I've understood, the IETF has been called to evaluate the
proposal for a standard for "TLS authorization" which, as far as I know,
is patent encumbered.
That patent in question is claimed by RedPhone Security. RedPhone
The Internet has flourished, in part, due to it's open nature.
Patent encumbered standards threaten that nature.
Please do not approve any standard that includes patented technology
unless the patent holder issues a royalty free license to all.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally si
We depend on organizations like the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF) and the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) to evaluate
new proposals for standards and make sure that they are not encumbered
by patents or any other sort of restriction that would prevent free
software users and pro
I am writing to voice my disapproval with a patent-encumbered standard
for TLS authorization. The proposed standard:
(http://tools.ietf.org/wg/tls/draft-housley-tls-authz-extns-07.txt)
contains a patent held by RedPhone Security, which has given a
license to anyone who implements the protocol, but
Dear IETF committee members:
I am sure that it is in IETF's best interest to promote the advance of the
Internet by publishing free and open standards that everyone can freely use.
However, a proposed standard titled "TLS Authorization Extensions"
(http://tools.ietf.org/wg/tls/draft-housley-tls
Hello IETF,
I am very disappointed with your decision to give a chance to a
patented technology (https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1026/) to become
a standard. Please, do not do that.
Sincerely, Eugeny Shkrigunov.
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https:
1 - 100 of 128 matches
Mail list logo
